On Gaelic Games: Little things and the trouble they cause. With a minute of normal time left in the Leinster football quarter-final 10 days ago, Offaly decided to send in James Keane as a replacement for John Reynolds. It's doubtful if this was intended as a major tactical play given that the match was in the bag, writes Seán Moran

The substitution was Offaly's sixth of the match and its status has been the focus of much huffing and puffing in the interim. The Leinster Council ruled on Saturday that Offaly had done nothing wrong and should advance to meet Wexford.

Kildare, however, have appealed to the Central Appeals Committee, which sits tonight, and indicated they will be taking this all of the way, suggesting the DRA's first big championship fixture of the season is on its way.

The practical consequences won't be enormous, as the authorities had the extra week to play with even if the idea of combining the Offaly-Wexford hurling match on a semi-final double bill had to be scratched because of the uncertainty.

Yet the matter has ended up as an unseemly mess. It has shed a harsh light on a few problems all too common within the GAA: unwieldy administration, reluctance to accept defeat on the field and the abysmal knowledge of rules within the association.

First, it is important to underline that Offaly don't deserve to be hindered in their championship progress. They were clearly superior on the day and any infraction of the rule gave them no unfair advantage.

In the past, the effect of breaking the rules on substitution has been irrelevant, but Congress decided in April that the impact of bringing on additional replacements should be taken into account and assessed, with a range of three punishments ranging from forfeiture to a fine. Were Offaly found to have broken a rule, it's likely the punishment would be a fine.

But despite the relative lack of contention concerning the substantive case, the general carry-on was bizarre. Leinster referred the issue of whether a rule had been broken to Central Council for an interpretation.

This was a reasonable course of action, despite the recent groundswell that maintains the issue was completely clear-cut and Offaly had no case to answer.

Support for what Offaly did rests on the fact that the 14th-minute blood substitution, or temporary replacement, was entirely in keeping with the rule governing such transactions. All five remaining transactions, it was argued, were obviously conventional substitutions, as they didn't come within the ambit of the exceptions listed in Rule 11 (Blood Rule) of the GAA's Match Regulations.

This argument is convincing, but fails to address the status of Pascal Kellaghan, the player who suffered a blood injury and was replaced by James Coughlan.

It doesn't appear to be envisaged in the match regulations that a player who has been temporarily replaced can suddenly assume the status of someone replaced in a conventional substitution (like Peter Canavan in Tyrone's two All-Ireland wins) or of some panel member who didn't start the match. Otherwise there would hardly be a need for separate provision for a returning player as there plainly is in regulation 11.2, entitled "Control: Player with blood injury resuming playing".

One thing that's definite is that Offaly didn't follow the strict procedure for readmitting Kellaghan to the field of play, in that he didn't check in with the linesman as required by 11.2 (i). The counter-argument runs that, as a conventional substitute, he was no longer governed by the blood rule. But that is in itself anomalous, because regulation 11 is there for a wider purpose and not just to regulate temporary comings and goings.

In other words, although there is a good case for saying that Offaly did nothing wrong, it's not completely unambiguous and the decision of the GAA's Management Committee to recommend that Central Council refuse to get involved was surprising.

It was argued that to give an interpretation would be effectively to decide the case, but that's the way with interpretations, and in the Vaughan case last year, the DRA strongly reaffirmed Central Council's authority to interpret rules.

Kildare's attack on the provincial council for referring the case was fairly odd as well. It's true that the county has run foul of the substitution rules on a number of occasions - either as transgressor or transgressed - but that wasn't of any relevance to the immediate case.

It's no fun being a county officer when the possibilities of a committee-room escape begin to inflame the public at large and county delegates.

Kildare's chair, Syl Merrins, was quick to point this out in the aftermath of the match - and no wonder when you see the official statement from the county board meeting in the wake of the Leinster Council's decision.

Criticising the provincial body for not deciding in Kildare's favour, the county board bulletin baldly stated: "It was the unanimous view of all present that Offaly had broken Rule 113 (b)."

Leave aside that the relevant rule is concerned with penalties and can't be broken by anyone except a committee in charge, the unanimous view of involved parties can hardly count as decisive evidence.

"One of the key talking-points last night," ran the statement, "was how ridiculous the situation would become in games across the country at all levels, were you to adopt the approach that a temporary sub could remain on the field while the player that he replaced returns to the fray. Does it mean that you could apply this 'principle' with every single one of your team and replace all 15 players?"

Well, in terms of temporary substitutions, if they were all bleeding profusely the answer is yes. In terms of ordinary substitutions, the answer is no.

After Saturday's decision in favour of Offaly, Kildare released a further statement justifying their intention to appeal: "We wish to emphasise that this is being done to safeguard the integrity of the rules of the association, so that a definite ruling will be made and all units will be in a position to be fully compliant with it." If that is the case, will the county accept the ruling of the Central Appeals Committee if it goes against them tonight? After all, that would be the logical course of action for any party not seeking a personal remedy.

Fógra: Last week's column, in keeping with the retro spirit sweeping the country, dwelt a while on the differences between the GAA now and 20 years ago. One of the nuggets of information presented was quite incorrect. The attendance at the 1986 All-Ireland hurling final was 63,451, not 43,451, and whereas the general point about the huge rise in attendances over the past 20 years holds true, the contrast was not as spectacular as indicated.