Kelly awaits new debate on Rule 42

GAA president Seán Kelly yesterday confirmed the changes to the Motions Committee proceedings would effectively guarantee a fresh debate on Rule 42 at next April's Congress. In the meantime several counties are already drafting motions in favour of allowing other sports be played at Croke Park.

Saturday's Special Congress in Dublin included the unanimous decision to change the way the Motions Committee deals with motions deemed out of order. From now on, counties must be notified in writing of the problem, be advised of the necessary changes, and be given sufficient time to resubmit.

Some five weeks before last Spring's Congress, the Motions Committee ruled all eight motions calling for an amendment to Rule 42 out of order. It meant there was no debate on the issue, much to the embarrassment of the GAA.

"I do believe these changes will make it a lot easier for any motion to come to Congress," said Kelly. "Clearly Rule 42 is still a live issue, and many people do want it debated at Congress. So I think there will be ensurances it will happen this year."

Kelly, however, couldn't rule out the possibility of some motions falling short of final approval: "Of course there is that possibility, but from now the Motions Committee will have to meet well in advance of the closing date, and say why any motion was out of order. Last year this took place after the closing date, and there was no chance to make any corrections. That opportunity is now there.

"We've also made it necessary to indicate where the motion was out of order, and that would certainly help in getting over those technical difficulties."

Although Kelly has expressed a personal preference for opening Croke Park to other sports, he stopped short of any appeal calling on counties to come forward with motions to amend Rule 42.

"All I will say is that any topic people want debated should be facilitated at Congress. That was the whole purpose of this, and I indicated at Congress last year I wasn't happy with the current situation, and would set about changing it.

"And I know the counties that were annoyed last year their motions didn't come forward indicated they'd come back with them this year. And I'm quite sure they will. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with what happened last year, and there's no point in me saying otherwise."

Roscommon's Tommy Kenoy, whose Kilmore club proposed one of the original motions three years ago and has failed in every effort since, yesterday confirmed plans for another attempt to amend Rule 42.

"At club level we plan to discuss it at our meeting next week," he said. "I can't pre-empt the decision, but I'd be very surprised if it doesn't go to convention again. And these changes do seem to clear the way, especially in allowing motions to be sent back to counties if there are any technical flaws in them. It certainly means we won't have a repeat of last year."

The Roscommon motion last year - one of eight submissions on the rule along with motions from Longford, Wicklow, Dublin, Laois, Mayo, Cavan and Clare - was sent back because five different rules which were mentioned in the motion were not properly quoted.

Kenoy added that feelings on the issue were swinging further towards favouring the opening of Croke Park: "I still believe a substantial majority of ordinary GAA members would want that rule amended. And there is still some anger that last year a democratic debate was denied. Perhaps the Congress wouldn't have agreed with our motions, but we should at least have got the opportunity to bring them to the floor."

Saturday's Congress also approved a new arbitration tribunal for appeals on disciplinary matters, and Kelly said this would almost certainly be ready for endorsement at next year's Congress.

Essentially, the new system would allow players or counties take their case beyond the Games Administration Committee (GAC), while avoiding the legal route of court action.

"We've been looking at the whole discipline situation and this is a very important aspect of it," said Kelly "Particularly in trying to create a mechanism within the association that at the same time is independent of the body that would be making the decisions.

"I think if there is general goodwill towards it and confidence in it it will spare an awful lot of hassle, and obviously an awful lot of money, and also keep a lot of the solicitors as far away from us as possible."

Comparisons have been made with the disciplinary commission of the Australian Football league (AFL), which is chaired by a QC and includes other independent panel members. Kelly, however, wasn't yet sure of the make-up of the arbitration tribunal.

"Well I don't know about non-GAA members, because they would need to have a knowledge of the games. But non-active officials yes, in particular some legal expertise, which would be seen to be independent, and above parochialism.

"The important thing is that people are confident they'd get a fair crack of the whip. "But we don't want it used in every case, and it's likely the management committee or Central Council will decide which cases deserve to go."