Delegates reject any moves to change playing rules

THE issue of whether the Central Council is less ‘democratic’ than clubs in terms of putting forward motions on playing rules to Congress every five years was discussed at Saturday’s Cork convention in Páirc Uí Chaoimh, leading to delegates voting 107/77 against a proposal to deny the Council and any of its sub-committees that recently-won right.

While the proposal to limit clubs, county and provincial councils to submitting motions was tabled jointly by Glen Rovers, Blackrock and St. Gabriel’s, effectively the debate centred on the case put strongly by Glen delegate Christy Ring and the counter-argument made with equal might by County Board Secretary Frank Murphy.

Mr Ring, son of the legendary Cork hurler, said the intention was that Croke Park ‘cannot’ change playing rules, adding: “the purpose of these two motions is that there would be a more democratic process for changing playing roles. At present there are five ways playing rule motions can be submitted to Congress every five years, through a club, county board, provincial council, Central Council and lastly a sub-committee of Central Council.

“The two proposals seek to remove the last two methods which are the two least democratic. If passed, it would mean neither Central Council nor a sub-committee of Council can change the playing rules.’’

Another effect, he pointed out, would be to limit media coverage which he felt was ‘increasingly favourable’ to experimental rules and Central Council playing rules changes. “The motions committee in Croke Park could then be considered independent and fair. It is not necessary for the changing of playing rules to be a management decision, nor should it be. Any changes to rules should be carried out as democratically as possible.

“These proposals would leave the three most democratic methods for changing playing rules, while removing the least democratic. The ability of clubs to have a significant input into the decision-making on the rules of play must be maintained and reinforced by the GAA. No motion from Central Council should get special treatment or attention over a club motion.’’

Blackrock delegate Tom O’Sullivan pointed out the President and the Ard Stiúrthóir can appoint six people ‘to change the playing rules,’ describing it as a dangerous precedent. “You are selecting people rather than electing them,’’ he commented.

Central Council delegate Des Cullinane referred to a proposal coming before the next Congress to the effect that ‘in between’ the five years, counties could make representations to the sub-committee on rule changes.

Responding, Frank Murphy stressed the Central Council is the supreme governing body of the Association and its president, vice-presidents, representatives of Congress (trustees) and the delegates of the counties are all duly elected. It would be wrong to say the supreme governing body should have no say in relation to the rules they are governing, the games they are governing and the rules under which they are played. I do not believe that any other sporting organisation would have such a restriction on its governing body,’’ he commented.

He also made a point of emphasising that the Central Council does not change the rules — that it was a matter of a sub-committee making proposals for change and that changes could only be made by Congress.

Mr Murphy said it also concerned him that the motions allowed no provision in rule for rules experimentation to take place in secondary competitions in advance of a ‘playing rules’ Congress.

“You have a select group asked to examine the rules, that will include administrators, referees, players, managers and they are only proposals that will be experimented with. Then it is a matter for counties and clubs to decide. As of now, clubs have the right of putting motions forward every five years and I would see no difficulty if there was a proposal for that term to be reduced.

“Some people might say changes should only be made every 10 years, but if there was a consensus opinion for three years or two years, so be it. I would say we should not pass a motion that our Central Council is anything but a democratic body and we should not ask our delegates at Congress to advocate that, or to suggest that.

“I understand the concerns of the proposer and I share a lot of his opinions in relation to trends that have taken place in relation to playing rules and how they have been implemented. But I would say this is not a route to take. Yes we are for proper implementation of the rules but I would respectfully suggest this is not the way to remedy any perceived faults in the system!’’

He recalled that concerns were raised last year in relation to elements introduced in football also applying to hurling and that this was ‘unsatisfactory.’ “It was seen as taking from traditional aspects of the game.

“I would see the situation that if it is the opinion of clubs that they should have a voice more often than five years I think we should go that route and, if necessary, at county committee level put forward a motion to that effect. But, I don’t think we should exclude the opportunity that Central Council avails of every five years effectively to do some experimentation — experimentation recommended by a wide spectrum of people within our Association.’’