ON GAELIC GAMES:The FRC has done some terrific work but its specific focus shouldn't be used to detract from the potential universality of its suggested reforms, writes SEÁN MORAN

THE LAUNCH of the Football Review Committee was underpinned by one of the GAA’s governing pieties: that the game is hurling’s dysfunctional sibling – same parents but what is wrong with that child?

As the impressively thorough consultations of the FRC continue the breadth of the issues under review makes it clear that both games have sufficient in common to make such a widespread survey worthwhile for both codes.

This becomes even more apparent when the likely outcome of the FRC’s deliberations is taken into account. Committee chair Eugene McGee distilled to its essence its task when he told this newspaper last week: “The point of this was to get the view of the public and the stakeholders. What do they think of Gaelic football? What would they do differently? I think if we can get change in four or five of the things that arise, they’d love it.”

McGee isn’t yet in a position to draw conclusions as to the likely extent of his shopping list but considering the double lock that needs to be picked – sufficient enthusiasm for the idea to capture the committee’s attention followed by the imprimatur of congress – it would be hard to accuse him of undue pessimism when setting a target of just half a dozen or so.

For a start it is extremely unlikely that there will be any radical change to the structure of the intercounty championship. Although the FRC may well try to reorganise the provinces into four eight-county conferences, the chances of securing a two-thirds majority even for such a reasonable attempt at providing symmetry are at best remote.

It remains puzzling how an Irish sports organisation on being handed – by Celtic chieftains, Elizabethan planters etc – a 32-county, four-province national structure had managed to devise the current championship. But flaws and all, the prevailing system benefits from there being no obvious, consensus alternative as well as from the interests of the provincial councils.

Similarly there appears to be no consensus on how far the GAA should go along the road of changing the game for ‘aesthetic’ reasons by curtailing hand passing, as the younger generation – which significantly includes the vast majority of adult players – appears comfortable with the possession-based game.

In the circumstances it’s likely that items such as the mark for clean catches from kick-outs between the 45-metre lines, an improved advantage rule – one where play can be called back – and the tap-and-go free will have a reasonable chance of acceptance.

The tackle has also become a problem area. Under the rules, the incidents of permissible physical contact are extremely limited, and yet football is played at a faster rate than ever before with opportunities to contest ball far more reduced and carrying into contact far more prevalent. But the level of genetic interference with the game needed to address this makes short-term change unlikely.

The biggest possible reform remains in the area of discipline. Cynical fouling and gamesmanship have been widely identified before the FRC as problems but it’s unreasonable to maintain that these concerns don’t also apply to hurling.

A quick look at the Kilkenny-Tipperary All-Ireland semi-final illustrates the irony of the opposition – on the grounds that it was a football problem – from hurling counties to the disciplinary reforms brought forward in 2009 by current GAA president Liam O’Neill.

When proposing the changes, which set out to tackle cynical and ‘highly disruptive’ fouling by stipulating that the offender be replaced by a team-mate for the remainder of the match, O’Neill summarised his committee’s intentions as enabling delegates, “to go back to the clubs and schools . . . (to tell children) . . . if you work hard and learn these skills we will protect you”.

The idea resonated with the vast majority of the delegates (177-100) but fell narrowly short of the two-thirds majority. Some county delegations were open to compromise but having been mandated, couldn’t support the proposals. There’s a strong possibility that were congress to reconsider these motions – or a similar blueprint – the outcome would be sufficiently different to ensure success.

The point of the rolling data provided in early 2009 by O’Neill’s committee was that these ideas, which had been trialled during the league, had led to reduced fouling and consequently higher-scoring matches in both hurling and football.

Another root cause of difficulties within both games is the curse of multi-eligibility whereby young players in particular are persecuted by the demands of playing for different teams – for some dual players, the number can rise into double figures.

Young footballers and hurlers are being pulled hither and thither by ridiculous demands. Several teams mean several managers, nearly all with their own agenda.

There is a strong argument that a senior official within each county should be entrusted with the authority to supervise young players and agree reasonable schedules and liaise with the team managers concerned.

Some good proposals in this area were made in order to address the problem of burn-out but were mostly rejected as counties in many cases elevated their own interests above that of players. But burn-out is only part of the difficulty caused by this. An insistent complaint centres on the inability of ordinary players to have a simple, straightforward and reliable schedule of club fixtures.

It’s a cliché at this stage how other sports manage to provide a list of dates for their participants whereas football and hurling clubs still find their activities dependant on other fixtures that have nothing to do with most of the players involved.

A county minor team does well and senior club fixtures get postponed. It’s another reason for limiting the number of teams with which a player can play. Yet describing such reforms as aspirational is, well, aspirational.

The FRC has done some terrific work but its specific focus shouldn’t be used to detract from the potential universality of its suggested reforms.