Way cleared to debate Rule 42

There were two significant postscripts to yesterday's announcement that Rule 42 has finally been cleared for debate at GAA Congress in April.

The first and more widely expected was that two of the successful motions only call for the temporary amendment to the controversial rule that bans the playing of soccer and rugby at Croke Park.

The second and less apparent was that those motions are still likely to require a two-thirds majority in order to come into effect. Both those components are set to become the focus of attention and discussion in the build-up to Congress, which this year, fittingly enough, takes place in Croke Park on April 15-16th.

Certain details of Tuesday night's meeting of the GAA's Motions Committee emerged over the course the day. While it was revealed that seven of the 11 motions which had been resubmitted for consideration were ultimately deemed eligible for inclusion on the Congress agenda, the Motions Committee was not making any formal comment on the nature of their deliberations.

Instead a brief statement was issued from Croke Park yesterday morning, which simply offered confirmation that "a majority of resubmitted motions in regard to Rule 42 of the Association's Official Guide (use of Croke Park by other sports) will be on the Association's Congress agenda".

At that stage it wasn't made clear exactly how many of the counties were successful, or why the unsuccessful ones were turned away. It was much later in the day before the secretaries of the counties involved received official notification on the future of their motions, which conflicted with the GAA's statement that the counties would be told before anyone else.

Anyway, it was added that the successful motions were approved as being in order by the Motions Committee, having been revised and resubmitted by county committees following earlier direction from the Motions Committee. As it turned out there would also be conflicts in that part of the statement - and that the Dublin motion was rejected because of an error they weren't alerted to in the original submission.

The GAA also pointed out that a considerable number of motions relative to other rules and issues were also approved, and will likewise be forwarded onto the Congress agenda having been similarly revised.

It's the motions concerning Rule 42, however, which remain the issue of the moment. For GAA president Seán Kelly the prospect of all 11 motions being rejected for a second time would have been first of all soul destroying, but secondly a major blow to his term in office. For the time being though he's got what he wanted, and described yesterday's announcement as a clear vindication of the decision of last year's Special Congress to introduce a more flexible process in dealing with motions.

"The decision taken by the Motions Committee is a manifestation of the members' integrity, impartiality and objectivity," he said. "The members of the committee had always acted in accordance with GAA rules and their defined mandate in a scenario where they did not have the luxury of an a la carte approach or interpretation. And it was unfortunate and unacceptable that the honour and integrity of these men had on occasion been questioned and impugned."

The 12-man committee, which is made up of Kelly, the 10 former GAA presidents, and the GAA director general Liam Mulvihill, met for over four hours on Tuesday afternoon for a final vetting of all motions submitted for Congress. At least two of those former presidents were understood not to have been in attendance, but in the end motions on Rule 42 from Roscommon, Sligo, Wicklow, Cavan, Longford, Kerry and Clare were deemed suitable for Congress.

Both the Roscommon and Sligo motions are calling for Croke Park to be used for other sports on a temporary basis, which strictly speaking does not require a rule change. According the GAA rule 80, which refers to motions at Congress, "motions to remove or amend an existing rule shall be carried by two-thirds of those entitled to vote and voting". But there is precedence in temporary rule changes being passed on a simple majority.

Kelly, however, later clarified the issue by saying even temporary changes to Rule 42 would almost certainly require a two-thirds majority given it's nature and significance.

"This is something people are jumping to conclusions on," said Kelly. "By and large motions that require a change in policy, and this is certainly a substantial change in policy, would require a two-thirds majority. This is not just about setting aside a playing rule for a short period of time. So to be making suggestions that it would require a simple majority would be premature at this point in time. That has been the custom and practice, and I think that is something people will have to bear in mind before they come to any conclusion about what they think will happen."

As it seems inevitable that the temporary lifting of the Rule 42 ban has the greatest chance of being passed at Congress it is now possible that some of the counties calling for the permanent amendment could withdraw their motion, and row in behind Roscommon and Sligo.

"Congress has to decide whether or not to wrap them up or take them individually," said Kelly, "but I would imagine Congress might decide to take them individually. But there will be room for a full and frank debate so people can express their views.

"Many people have been waiting some time to get that opportunity, and it's important that the debate is open and fair, and partaken as sensibly as possible. At the end of the day we'll have to say this was debated long enough and we'll have to make a decision either way. But it wasn't my credibility at stake. It was the credibility of the democratic process of the organisation."

From that point of view at least Kelly has ridden out possibly the stormiest period of his presidency.