Plans should streamline process

GAELIC GAMES: The GAA have unveiled the first tranche of proposals that it is hoped will radically streamline the association's disciplinary procedures. The work of the Rule Book Task Force, chaired by Cork's Frank Murphy, the report contains 50 pages of motions for consideration at this month's annual congress.

Its main recommendation is an overhaul of how disciplinary matters are heard, with two new committees proposed: one, the Competitions Control Committee (CCC) to process charges against players from either a referee's report or an investigation and propose a penalty, and the other, the Hearings Committee, to hear any challenge from the player involved.

This recommended structure is intended to apply at all levels of the GAA, with the current CGAC at national level assuming the role of the CCC and the Central Disciplinary Committee fulfilling the duties of the Hearings Committee.

"This is the main item on the agenda for congress," said GAA president Seán Kelly. "Last year the Rule Book Task Force prioritised the establishment of the DRA (Disputes Resolution Authority) because of the number of court cases being taken against the association.

"Suggestions that the rule book is up in a heap are a total exaggeration. We now have a system that will work, and work effectively, into the future."

Murphy outlined the progress of his task force's remit to update the Official Guide. "This report deals with Part 1 of the Official Guide, not Part 2. It is about the enforcement of rules and completes our review of Part 1. We got authorisation from congress to examine Part 2 and we will be asking for an extension of that in order to consider the playing rules over the next year."

Among the issues that will have to wait until next year is that of suspension for cumulative yellow cards, which comes under the heading of foul play in the playing rules, which constitute Part 2 of the Official Guide.

Liam Keane, secretary to the DRA and a member of the task force, explained why the new system would have an effect on the tangled red tape and technicality-rich environment that allowed the miscreants in Omagh escape the consequences of their misbehaviour.

"I would certainly hope that this set of procedures is more structured and won't allow as much scope for error. There is a slight expansion of the grounds for appeal. As well as where there has been a clear infringement or misapplication of rule, there is provision for appeal where the appellant's right to a fair hearing has otherwise been compromised to such an extent that a clear injustice has occurred."

Another deterrent to opportunistic appeals is the recommendation that an appeals body have the power to refer some cases back for re-hearing, as well as the power to decide the case itself and, if it so wishes, increase the original penalty.

One provision that is conspicuous by its absence is the power to review a yellow card leniently shown by a referee in response to what was apparently a red-card offence. There is provision for a referee to revise his opinion having consulted video evidence, and the CCC is empowered to ask the official to look again at his decision. But there is no power to compel him either to review or revise his original decision.

"It's a case of competing philosophies," said Keane. "One is the supremacy of the referee's report; the other is the need to correct errors and punish indiscipline.

"If a referee looks at something, makes a judgment and is asked to re-consider but decides not to, the committee won't interfere to referee the match. The integrity of the referee's position is preserved."

A referee's decision on the validity of a score will continue to be unchallengeable, but where the official neglects to record a score properly, that can be appealed.

There are also proposals to vary the length of some suspensions, with the current minimum being regarded in some cases as too lenient and in others as too severe.

Verbal abuse of a match official is to establish a distinction between "throwaway remarks" and "threats", with the former being reduced from eight to four weeks and the latter increased from eight to 12.

The infraction of "striking" is also to be differentiated. "We sought to distinguish between striking with minimal force," said Murphy, "and striking with force or causing injury."

Repeat offenders will be more severely punished, with it no longer being necessary to commit the same infraction twice to earn a double suspension. Now repeating the same category of offence will suffice.

There will also be wider use of code- and level-specific suspensions. Murphy also said that the procedures governing forfeiture of games had been simplified.

"There is a great deal of variety in relation to the forfeiture and award of games, which can be granted on any of up to 25 grounds. We have decided to streamline that list and give flexibility to the committee in charge. A game can be awarded only on a proven objection."

This means that a team will have to object on foot of infractions, such as fielding too many replacements, but that the CCC won't be obliged to award the match to the objectors, having regard to all circumstances.

Communications in respect of such cases will be accepted by fax and e-mail, provided supporting documentation arrives within two days. The bulk of these provisions are intended to come into effect on January 1st.

Main proposals of the Rule Book Task Force

New disciplinary structures to consist of two committees. The Competitions Control Committee (CCC) will propose suspensions on foot of either the referee's report or an investigation, which the CCC will conduct, into an incident.

A player may accept the suspension or dispute it, in which case the matter goes to the Hearings Committee before whom the CCC and player put their cases.

This will avoid crossover between the bodies and reduce the scope for technical flaws.

Appeals can result in three outcomes: the annulment of the original decision, a referral back for re-hearing, or the Hearings Committee can reach its own decision, including increasing the original suspension.

Offences to be referred to as "infractions" to avoid confusion with criminal offences.

Most suspensions will be code- and level-specific, ie, applicable only in the game and at the level in which the infraction was committed.

Repeat infractions will be punished by double suspension. It will no longer be necessary that the precise foul be repeated as long as it falls within the same category.

The CCC will have no power to revisit an overly lenient yellow card.

Although the committee can ask the referee to review the decision, he is under no obligation to do so.

More flexibility in dealing with infractions that currently necessitate the mandatory forfeiture of matches.