Although yesterday's disciplinary proposals have had a lengthy gestation period, their emergence yesterday came as something of a surprise because of their radical nature. There is little in the report that commonsense hasn't been suggesting for a while but usually there are more kites flown in relation to such comprehensive reforms.

This year's battle for hearts and minds will chiefly be waged at provincial level. The four provincial councils are being asked to surrender their powers to discipline and to appoint referees for senior championship matches.

The proposal makes sense on two levels. Firstly, it lends consistency to the whole process of administering discipline and eliminates the disparity between the way certain offences are treated in different provinces. Secondly, and as an extension of this point, provincial councils will be removed from the occasion of sin that arises when one of their counties has progressed to the All-Ireland stage and has an influential player in the dock.

Another set of proposals which have long been needed concerns the speed with which disciplinary cases are processed. "In order that matters be dealt with expeditiously," said Murphy, "time limits have been reduced". The procedural apparatus can move more quickly in three main respects. For a start, a referee's report can be requested within 24 hours. This will eliminate the current scope for foot-dragging which means that controversies can't be dealt with or discussed until the referee files his report.

Secondly, all seven-day time limits have been reduced to three days. Thirdly, and crucially, the secretary of the committee organising the fixture in question can notify all named in the referee's report as soon as he or she gets it. At present, notification waits on the committee's consideration of the report.Equally, the amendments to match-day disciplinary issues are welcome. The introduction of yellow and red cards has been an obviously-needed innovation and has worked well as an experiment in the current NFL.

The question of suspensions has been less surely handled. This is an area haunted by anomaly and one which would have been cleared up by the adoption of match-based suspensions rather than those for periods of time. In rejecting the match-ban concept, the sub-committee appear to have become mesmerised by the variety of competitions in which players participate.

Some effort has been made to address the most obvious shortcomings by eliminating December and January from the list of months in which suspensions can be served. This prevents players viewing three-month bans in November as an early Christmas present and now the punishment won't be served until February. Apparently, November was considered for inclusion in this dead-zone but rejected.

Yet the current failings remain. As was mentioned at the press conference, Galway's Padraig Joyce's recent one-month suspension cost him six important matches - two NFL and four Sigerson Cup. Murphy's argument that the success of match-bans presupposes a professional sport where most activity is at one level - such as club soccer in the English Premiership - whereas GAA members play with several teams and in several competitions and even at the highest level don't have a consistent programme of matches, has its merits. Nonetheless it relies too much on an indulgent attitude to the offender.

It is felt that a player with a poor team mightn't get to play championship for three years if a three-match inter-county ban was imposed. But if National League matches were considered on the same level as senior inter-county championship, the balance could be served when the NFL or NHL resumed.

The same argument was applied to the idea of cumulative suspensions. Again the soccer experience was that with a programme of 40 matches, such a procedure worked. Murphy advanced an extraordinary argument (from which he later distanced himself) based on a player booked in five matches for jersey-pulling. Were such a player to miss an All-Ireland final, this, he maintained, would be overly harsh.

The alternative view is that until such a punishment is imposed, certain players will feel free to foul persistently, on the basis that as long as they know where to draw the line, they won't suffer unduly - a prevalent attitude that needs changing.