GAELIC GAMES:The mirror's not being held up to the GAA membership for a spot of contemplation. It's been locked away, writes SEAN MORAN

ICELANDIC ACTOR Vidar Egg sat in a darkened room in the Damer Theatre on Stephen’s Green during the 1986 Dublin Theatre Festival and “entertained” successive one-person audiences with an adaptation of Samuel Beckett’s Not I.

Each performance lasted about 15 minutes. You sat there slightly disorientated while Mr Egg groaned away nearby, his repeated accusations, “not I but you” hitting a tone somewhere between discomfort and disturbing. It ended abruptly on the final “not I but you” with a loud clanking as a mirror on a chain dropped down and a bright light focused on the exclusive audience.

Confronted by your own reflection you could yelp (even I nearly did and I knew it was going to happen) or else nod appreciatively as Mr Egg disappeared.

I was reminded of this (not immediately) during Monday’s launch of the Allianz National Leagues. Most pre-season interviews with a manager are agenda-free affairs and this time around the lack of even a few experimental rules to furrow their brows made the occasion even more mellow than usual.

Séamus McEnaney wasn’t happy with the training ban in November and December but Conor Counihan was, although, as he acknowledged, why wouldn’t he be, given Cork’s last two seasons have run all the way until the end of September.

The stand-out performance, the – if you wish – “Mr Egg” moment came from GAA president Christy Cooney who took press questions. We were of course only the media, the channels through which the association’s membership could be contacted but the president laid out his position on a number of topical issues.

After a couple of years of complaints mostly from intercounty managements about the mandatory rest period for elite players in November and December Cooney referred to the arguments in favour of the enforced close-season ban on intercounty panels collectively training but reiterated it was up to the membership at congress to change the status quo if that’s what they wanted.

He also emphasised the reported sightings of counties breaking this rule had been difficult to substantiate and it was easy to understand his frustration at the way rules are accepted by congress and then ignored by counties.

It’s probably not as easy – but try – to picture him in a darkened room, groaning at a delegate: “The situation with the training ban is that it’s a matter for congress to schedule a change if there’s a motion to do that. At the end of the day if counties decide to change it, it’s a matter for them . . .”

Not I But You.

Questions turned to suggestions that people had been playing five-a-side soccer in Mallow. The ban on the use of facilities in GAA clubs by other sports is turning into a constant embarrassment.

We’ve already had two such episodes gaining long-running controversy: around a year ago Nemo Rangers let their Trabeg facilities in Cork to the Ireland rugby team and at the end of last year Wexford club Faythe Harriers were also in the dock for allowing soccer players use their all-weather pitch.

The two clubs escaped with a slap on the wrist but not before the indignity of having to justify themselves with tortuous explanations for clear breach of rule. In an economic depression it’s hardly any surprise that clubs are trying to maximise the value of their assets and why wouldn’t they?

Cooney’s instinct was to make the latest eruption go away.

“I don’t know. They could be club members. It would be unfair of me to comment on a situation when I don’t know the facts. There’s a rule there and clubs and counties are not alone expected to adhere to it but they must adhere to it. If counties or clubs want to change they’ve to put a motion to congress to get it changed . . .”

Not I But You.

The Mallow GAA website states: “Mallow GAA Sports Complex opened to the public on Monday 2nd April 2007. The state-of-the-art Sports Complex provides sports and social facilities for Mallow GAA Club and the local community.”

What does the GAA think goes on there?

Cooney argues trenchantly and consistently that Rule 5.1 applies to all clubs. Its predecessor Rule 42 was relaxed only to allow Croke Park be used for major events. The prohibition on other sports being played on GAA premises remains in force at club grounds.

Ironically the restriction of the amendment to Croke Park back in 2005 was originally seen as a reassurance to GAA members who were worried about contagion once the headquarters stadium was declared open. Instead the years since have seen resentment directed at the GAA hierarchy for cashing in on other sports while forbidding clubs to do so.

Nonetheless it’s happening on a widespread basis. This dissonance between rule and reality is not a new tendency within the organisation. Nonetheless a challenge to the prevailing culture came at last year’s congress when director general Páraic Duffy announced he would like to reconcile theory and practice, rule and reality, in relation to amateur status.

In his 2010 annual report Duffy raised the mounting anecdotal evidence of coaches being paid under the table despite Rule 1.10 (by this stage less an elephant in the room than a room in the elephant).

“What, then, should be done?” he asked. “The least acceptable option is to continue to proclaim a value and, at the same time, ignore it. And expressing a determination to address the issue (genuine as the intention may be) is meaningless unless followed by effective action.”

That action was the preparation of an extensive discussion paper, which it was hoped, would generate debate on the amateurism issue – and ascertain the preference between proper enforcement or rule change – and which was submitted to the GAA’s Management Committee last November and the only discussion generated to date by the document nearly a year after its genesis has been, “Where is it?”

Commenting on this on Monday, the president explained: “As you’re all aware it’s a most challenging area and whatever we decide to do at the end of the day we’ve got to make sure it’s right and in the best interests of the association not just at county level but at club level.”

No one would argue with that but the discussion document was presumably intended to facilitate that very consideration amongst a broader swathe of membership than just the Management Committee.

It’s fairly safe at this stage to infer that the discussion document must contain some, to put it delicately, challenging observations on the hypocrisy that cloaks the issue.

But this time around the mirror’s not being held up to the membership for a spot of contemplation. It’s been locked away. Is the membership not trusted to discuss this and eliminate the double think whatever the ultimate decision?

Not You But I.