Liston calls on GAA to adopt same disciplinary system as AFL

KERRY legend Eoin Liston believes the GAA should adopt the disciplinary system operated by their AFL counterparts.

Liston, speaking in the wake of the GAA’s decision to halve Paul Galvin’s six-month ban, is convinced the Australian option is more streamlined and would prevent a repeat of the debacle which has surrounded the Kerry captain since his dismissal against Clare six weeks ago.

He reasoned: “I think that the Australian method of dealing with these disputes is a better system. They have a three-man commission, and from day one, they call in the player and listen to his side of the argument.

“Then they make a decision and the player has one appeal after that. I think it would be faster and fairer for everyone,” he told Newstalk.

Liston, winner of seven All-Ireland medals, expressed delight at Galvin’s reduced ban.

“Paul was hard done by. I felt that he was sent off in the wrong that day (against Clare in the Munster semi-final) and it was his reaction to being wronged that caused everything, the flicking of the referee’s notebook and all that. I’m delighted for Paul. It gives a bit of hope to him at least, that if Kerry do get to the final, he’s going to be available. But it will be very hard for him to win his place back if they get that far.”

Former All-Ireland winning player and selector Ger O’Keeffe, also welcomed the reduction but feels the GAA have to learn from this embarrassing climb down.

Said O’Keeffe: “A three-month ban is fair punishment. I think most people within the country, referees, fair-minded people and people from other sports, felt the original six-month ban was far too harsh.

“What was relevant was the length of the suspension and what is also very relevant is when a person breaks the rules, they must, under the laws of the Association, face a suspension. Paul will be first to admit that what he did was wrong, and I have no doubt that if the original suspension had been three months, then Paul and the county board would have accepted it and there would have been no appeal. Instead I think he was treated poorly by the systems and was hung out to dry for a long period and now its only after almost two months that he is getting fair play.”

O’Keeffe believes that there are still questions to answered about the original six months ban.

“It is extraordinary a committee appointed by the president and the senior executive of GAA, gave Paul six months and another committee appointed by the same people with the same standing only gave him three months.

“So the question has to be asked what was the original CHC members thinking of? It is clear that this time around the CHC, just like the DRA, found the six months was over the top. I think it requires the whole disciplinary procedures to be looked at in the light of the way this case was handled. I think it was very poorly handled by the whole disciplinary procedure process and that is worrying.

“On what grounds did the original CHC reach their extraordinary decision to give Paul six months? Looking at the history of this GAA disciplinary chain it appears that in its efforts to avoid controversy, it has only conceded to create it. Too many tiers and too many committees lead to inconsistencies and it has failed to deliver on a number of occasions. If it is to operate properly it has to have status and decisions have to be accepted. They cannot be seen to be biased and in this case there was bias in my opinion. Paul was being punished for indiscretions in the past and that’s why they doubled his sentence rather than dealing with the facts before them, which the CHC did on Tuesday night.”