Measures to test early-season confidence

On Gaelic Games: It is appropriate for any year to begin with a show of confidence, however forced or contrived. Faced with the gloomy realities of January, what can anyone do but fervently hope the future will be better and make vague personal undertakings to do better in order to enhance the possibility of brighter things ahead?

Confidence within the GAA is a fragile plant. There are many positive signs from the interest in and exposure for the games during the full-on championship season of high summer and the association's continuing centrality to Irish society, statistical confirmation of which was most vividly demonstrated in the ESRI report of just 15 months ago.

But also present is an at times bleak pessimism about where the games are heading after a century and a quarter. Among these issues are the failure of hurling to break beyond its original confines and the lack of competitive excitement with Cork and Kilkenny having won seven of the last eight All-Irelands (even the eighth was won by Tipperary), pressure on clubs from the demands of the intercounty game and social changes as well as the encroachment of professional sport.

Earlier this week GAA president Nickey Brennan announced amended measures to address another hardy perennial: indiscipline and general disorder. He exhibited a seasonal confidence about the likelihood of these having a positive impact.

The denial that the amendments constituted a backing down in the face of managerial demands was predictable but also had an element of truth. Adding a couple of selectors isn't going to make a huge difference to the state of the sideline, and Brennan's belief that improved behaviour is the most important element in solving the problem is correct.

As he also pointed out, the matter will be reviewed after the National League and if the new measures aren't having the desired effect they can be tightened. He was unconvinced by the idea that Gaelic games should simply fall into line with other codes and prohibit sideline coaching, citing the tradition of managers roaring along the line and "urging their team on".

There is another more rational reason for stalling on this ultimate sanction and that is simply a lack of infrastructure. Criticism of the move to shift some selectors into the stands was justified on one level even if it would ultimately be for the best to clear the sidelines altogether. But to remove management teams from the sideline would require the erection of coaches' boxes as used in Australian Rules and improvised in Galway for the first International Rules Test last October. The prospect of selectors being surrounded by supporters in the stand could hardly be seen to be in the best interests of maintaining order.

Similarly the transfer of responsibility for water-carriers to the match committees created potential problems in the area of drug testing, as it would break the chain of custody and create an obvious defence for any failed test.

As with all questions of discipline the enforcement of acceptable behaviour on the sideline will inevitably come down to the operation of adequate deterrent. GAA director general Liam Mulvihill bluntly declared his scepticism about the effectiveness of fines, and it would have been difficult to argue with him.

Even if there is relative harmony between teams and their county officials, expecting players and managers to moderate their behaviour because not to do so would entail financial loss to their county board is to place faith in an unconvincing sanction.

Removing a manager from the sideline for a couple of matches would, however, have the desired effect, particularly if - as Brennan promised - the indulgence of "warnings" as to future conduct is to be removed.

The question of imposing adequate punishment also arises in relation to the other principal point of interest from Monday's media conference: the preparation of a report and recommendations for next April's congress on the subject of disciplinary rules covering, according to Mulvihill, issues such as suspension for cumulative yellow cards and match-based rather than time-based suspensions.

Tellingly, Frank Murphy will chair the committee, as he does the Rules Book Task Force, under whose aegis the report will be drawn up. Murphy doesn't believe match bans are a good idea.

Eight years ago he chaired the review sub-committee on discipline, which introduced yellow and red cards. That sub-committee decided not to proceed with either cumulative suspension or match bans.

In the latter case, the reasoning was that such a system would require suspensions to be limited to specific competitions and that this would lead to the inappropriate situation where players were allowed to play in certain matches immediately after being suspended.

Competition-specific punishments, it was argued, would also unduly punish unsuccessful teams. Cumulative bookings were rejected because a caution is often used as a deterrent and referees would be slower to administer them if they all counted for disciplinary purposes.

The maintenance of the required records was also cited as a reason, as was the unequal exposure of successful teams.

When the matter of cumulative yellow cards last arose at congress, two years ago, "the maintenance of records" again raised its head in one of the daftest - even by the standards of the forum - arguments heard on the floor.

Given the availability of referees' reports, why should the maintenance of yellow-card records be any different from that of their red equivalents?

So what are the chances of a change of mind on this matter being urged in three months' time?

Despite the promisingly blank canvas of a New Year it's hard to be too confident.