Harry Kehoe called ‘admitted liar’ in report

Wexford hurler Harry Kehoe was considered “an admitted liar” by the GAA’s Central Hearings Committee (CHC), after he claimed he hoodwinked officials into sending off Tadhg de Búrca in July’s All-Ireland quarter-final.

The Waterford defender was red-carded after linesman John Keenan informed referee Fergal Horgan that de Búrca had deliberately interfered with Kehoe’s helmet in the closing stage of their counties’ clash in Páirc Uí Chaoimh.

De Búrca unsuccessfully challenged the Central Competitions Control Committee’s proposed, one-match ban with the CHC and Central Appeals Committee (CAC), prior to the Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA) upholding those groups’ decision. He served a one-match ban for Waterford’s All-Ireland semi-final win over Cork.

Two days prior to the semi-final, the DRA explained that they had dismissed de Búrca’s appeal that the decisions by the CHC and the CAC were “irrational”. In the DRA’s lengthier decision document, released last Friday, they found the referee’s report was “clear evidence” that de Búrca’s action was deliberate.

Reviewing the video evidence, it was highlighted that Kehoe had been seen “appealing to the linesman after the incident and appears to be indicating that his faceguard has been pulled or grabbed”.

Kehoe had given testimony that he “had exaggerated the situation to the linesman, in order to try and get de Búrca sent off. He described the position in the game at that time — Wexford were well behind — and that he knew that ‘pulling a faceguard was a red card’.

“He stated that he was certain that Mr de Búrca had not intended to grab his faceguard and that he believed that the linesman had not seen the incident at all and had only acted as he did (in advising the referee of the incident) because of what Mr Kehoe had told him.”

The DRA panel of Rory Mulcahy (senior counsel), Niall Cunningham, and Orlaith Mannion said there was no basis for de Búrca’s claim that his and Kehoe’s evidence was not heard by the CHC or CAC. They added that de Búrca was entitled to establish if neither Horgan nor Keenan saw the incident, by seeking clarification of the referee’s report, but he hadn’t pursued that avenue.

They continued: “It is not necessary, in our view, to have regard, as the respondent (CHC) urged us to do, that Mr Kehoe’s evidence was that of an ‘admitted liar’, since his evidence, even taken at its height, did not meet the high threshold required for relief to be granted on the basis of alleged irrationality.”

The DRA also endorsed the CHC’s ruling that “any type of conduct which is dangerous to an opposing player is in breach of the rule and that deliberately pulling of a faceguard is an example of the type of behaviour that does infringe the rule, i.e. is dangerous, rather than could infringe the rule”.

They elaborated: “‘Intention’ is a necessary element of the offence. But there is no basis, in our view, for suggesting that it must be intended to pull on a faceguard in a ‘dangerous’ manner.”