Trying to make sense of the GAA rulebook

REPLAY?: Kilmacud Crokes' players celebrate after the AIB GAA Football All-Ireland Senior Club Championship Final. Pic: Daire Brennan/Sportsfile

For GAA fans, the association’s rule book is a bit like Ulysses. Most know of it. Many have never read. Few can interpret its real meaning.

Oddly, in the latest GAA controversy involving the All-Ireland senior club final between Glen and Kilmacud Crokes, the rule in question – 6.44 – is straightforward.

Most GAA fans will be familiar with the first part of 6.44: you must have 15 players by the start of the second half, otherwise the game is forfeited. Asking the club stalwart in his sixties to ‘stand in corner forward’ until the rest of the lads arrive is a rite of passage for any junior b coach.

It is of course the second part (b) of Rule 6.44 that is central to the matter at hand. Where it is proven that a team (in this case Kilmacud Crokes) exceeded the number of players permitted on the field of play or a team exceeded the number of substitutions permitted, then the game is either forfeited, replayed or a fine is imposed.

The procedure that follows is threefold. First, someone must start the process. This can be done by the opposing club making a “proven objection” or “on inquiry” by the “committee in charge” (the central Competitions Control Committee – CCCC).

One of the most bizarre aspects of this dispute, which has unnecessarily led to the matter being dragged out all week, is that the CCCC did not want to use its powers of inquiry and handballed it to Glen to object.

Objections have their own separate rule, Rule 7.10, which has, wait for it, 16 sub-sections. Mind you, it is not as bad as the Rule relating to disciplinary hearings (Rule 7.3). It has 33 sub-sections. Rule 7.3 literally runs out of letters in the alphabet and the 27th section is Rule 7.3(aa).

No wonder loopholes abound.

Dickens probably had the GAA rule book in mind when in Bleak House he wrote: “The lawyers have twisted it into such a state of bedevilment that the original merits of the case have long disappeared from the face of the earth.” 

Having said that, the reason GAA committees tend to leave it to clubs to object is that historically objections in the GAA are based on a claim that either (i) that the opposition has played an unregistered player; or (ii) that the referee wrongly recorded the final score. The latter has been the subject of DRA arbitrations.

In both instances, it is up to the defeated club to prove that a “ringer” has been played or the referee made a mistake. There are very good reasons for any GAA committee in charge to stay out of such objections and put the burden on the club claiming the error.

However, in this matter and a bit like the misconception that, unless the victim of a crime presses charges the police cannot intervene, there is no good reason for the CCCC’s inaction. The breach of 6.44 by Kilmacud is clear. The evidence in the form of TV coverage was instantly available. The authority for the CCC to act is expressly provided for in the Rule.

Instead, Glen, amidst the emotion and exhaustion of a narrow defeat, had to convene a meeting. Glen gave it their all to get to the All-Ireland final. The GAA should not have asked for more.

The vacuum left by the CCC’s inertia was filled in part by snipes at Kilmacud along the line of “if it were the other way around the Dublin super club would have their senior counsels at the ready”. Instead of unreservedly celebrating that rare thing in club land – returning from a defeat in the previous year’s final to win – Kilmacud felt the brunt of social media’s bile and begrudgery.

As it happens, Glen’s objection must have been a relatively straightforward matter to file – an email declaring that Kilmacud breached Rule 6.44(a) and attaching the screenshot of TG4’s coverage of the final passage of play showing 16 players including Dara Mullin, who should have gone off the field, but instead and from his own goal line watched Glen’s last effort drift wide.

Ethically, this should be a straightforward matter to resolve but the arc of the GAA universe is long and it doesn’t always bend towards justice. Yes, the Rule in question was clearly breached and there is evidence to that effect, but the real question is what the appropriate or proportionate penalty should be - a fine, forfeit of the game or a replay? With typical ambiguity, the Rule in question says it all depends “on the circumstances”.

As it happens, at one point Kilmacud had 17 players on the pitch. Paul Mannion, despite being replaced, was still making his way off the pitch as the last play – a 45 by Glen – was being taken. The appropriate penalty here would appear to be a fine. In contrast, in the “circumstances” the proportionate penalty for having an extra man on the goal line for the final play is likely to be a replay. The forfeit of the game would be an excessive penalty. Only if it were shown that Kilmacud intentionally played on with 16 could a forfeit be considered. There is no evidence at all for that.

The fact is that the Kilmacud player (Dara Mullin) had “illegally” remained on the field of play for a matter of seconds. The fact is that the error by Kilmacud was inadvertent and not deliberate. The fact that Mullin did not touch the ball or interfere with play is neither here nor there. The Rule is strict in its liability: play with more than 15 and it’s breached.

Kilmacud have the take up their right to counter object. It is likely that they will argue that the confusion as to the substitution was the referee’s responsibility to resolve. In the GAA Official Guide (Part 2) there is a provision (1.7) relating to the substitution zone – “an area of the sideline, extending 5m. on either side of the centre-line, shall be marked as the Substitution Zone, and all the players coming off/going on to the field of play in acts of substitution/temporary substitution shall go through this point, when given permission by the Referee.” 

In the counter objection expect some debate as to whether express permission was given by the referee for Dara Mullin to go off. In the absence of such confirmation, Mullin justifiably stayed or at least Kilmacud might argue that they should not be unduly punished.

This saga is now likely not to be heard until next week and nothing in life is certain except death, taxes and a GAA appeal.

It’s tough on the players. There are now in limbo and the purgatory of mentally and physically peaking again for an All-Ireland final awaits.

For the GAA, there are probably three lessons in all of this.

Be stricter and clearer with substitute zones. A substitute generally should not be allowed step beyond the sideline until his teammate crosses that line.

Give referees, especially in the bigger games, more assistance. They have so much to do: time, scoring, and having to crack the Enigma code of Irish sport – what a proper tackle is in Gaelic football. Sideline officials should act as assistant referees not overly officious accountants.

And for everyone’s sake – players, coaches, referees, administrators alike – please stop the leaks and overflows and redraw the GAA Rule book from scratch because at present it is, to quote Ulysses, like holding water in your hand.

Jack Anderson, Professor of Law, University of Melbourne.