Councils happy to give up powers

"What is power?" wondered Sean Kelly, the chairman of the GAA's Munster Council, before answering himself: "Power is meaningless unless you provide an efficient and fair service."

And, in one fell swoop, he dispelled the notion that anyone might be upset at the perceived dilution of provincial authority contained in this week's report which proposes a radical overhaul of disciplinary procedures within the GAA.

The mood for change seems quite overwhelming. Indeed, if the degree of unanimity offered yesterday by various provincial council officials to the disciplinary changes proposed in midweek by the sub-committee charged with drawing up the report is anything to go by, then the proposals are likely to be greeted at next month's GAA Annual Congress with considerable enthusiasm from the delegates.

Although the report advocates 21 rule changes covering administration and playing, the two most radical proposals would see the creation of new structures to centralise the appointment of referees and the administration of discipline. However, rather than the provincial councils feeling threatened, the initial reaction has been to embrace the proposals in the belief that they would ensure a more consistent interpretation of the rules, especially since the report recommends the establishment of a small body to oversee disciplinary matters.

Michael Delaney, the secretary of the Leinster Council, said: "The Leinster Council has been long of the mind that discipline should be under a national central body, mainly for the purpose of consistency. That has been our attitude in the past, and I don't see it changing now." Delaney added that the proposals promoted the general thrust of what his provincial council has advocated for some time.

So, although the four provincial councils are being asked to relinquish their powers to discipline players and to appoint referees for senior championship matches, the general consensus among the power-brokers is that a central body makes more sense and, in the view of Kelly, also "takes away a lot of the hassles."

Kelly argued: "I'd welcome the proposals with great enthusiasm, and have long advocated a central body for disciplinary matters. It is long overdue. And I would also agree with the centralised appointment of referees because it eliminates any talk or accusation of favouritism or nepotism that could be, and were, directed at officials in provincial councils."

Most importantly, Kelly believes the new proposals will bring about greater efficiency. "In the past, we've had accusations of inconsistency - and that is going to happen when you have four or five bodies trying to interpret the rules. Of course you're going to get inconsistency. I think these proposals are a step in the right direction."

The provincial councils won't, however, have any direct influence on whether or not the proposals - which will be proposed in two enabling motions from Central Council, covering administrative rule changes and alterations to the playing rules - will be passed as this responsibility falls to the county delegates.

The administrative changes can be permanently amended next month but the playing rules (which include the introduction of red and yellow cards and no suspensions to be served in December or January) can only be approved on an experimental basis until next year as these rules may only be changed every five years.

"You'll have people who are for and against the proposals," admitted John Prenty, the secretary of the Connacht Council. "Personally, I'd have no problem with the proposals. It makes sense to have one body administering discipline. But our opinions at the end of the day won't have much say - it is the counties who will ultimately decide."

Yet, the feeling is that the provincial officials would surrender their existing powers to discipline and to appoint referees in the interest of greater efficiency which, by and large, is what they believe would occur should the new proposals come into effect. It's in the hands of the counties.