ON GAELIC GAMES:Sunday's match demonstrated the inadequacy of the rule book and its punishments, writes SEAN MORAN

YIKES! WHO would have thought the failure to embrace better behaviour at last month’s GAA annual congress would have resulted in such instant loss of inhibition as was on display in Thurles on Sunday? The NHL final between Kilkenny and Tipperary was theoretically played under the stricter dispensation of the experimental rules but it was clear that in spirit everyone had retuned their sensibilities.

The Central Competitions Control Committee (CCCC) will meet this afternoon, presumably to sift through the abundant video evidence and decide if and what further action can be taken.

There will of course be unhappiness with what is frequently presented as the tyranny of the DVD player. In other words, that was a great and competitive hurling final that was occasionally abrasive and overly physical – why not draw a line, get on with it and move onwards to the summer?

This reflects no more than the low emphasis placed on discipline as a component of Gaelic games but is also proof of the culture that Liam O’Neill’s committee was trying to address with the recent proposed rule changes.

Ask yourself would the match in Thurles have been better if misbehaviour bordering – and at times crossing that line – on violence hadn’t been so prominent? The physical element of Gaelic games is ratcheted fairly high at present and that’s fine as long as play remains within the rules but it must be more strictly controlled than was the case on Sunday.

There is universal opprobrium reserved for players who cheat by feigning injury and pretending to have been fouled. But dangerous, undisciplined and violent play is also cheating.

The irony underlying this is that but for the strict requirements of the two-thirds majority, the mood of congress was actually of a mind to accept the recent proposals. A succession of speakers stood up, decried the corrosive influence of foul play and cynicism in the games and called for meaningful penalties to deter and eliminate such behaviour.

Two of the contributions were emotive but nonetheless pertinent for that.

Anthony Delaney from Laois asked: “Am I to tell my son who beats a sliotar off the wall morning, noon and night that a fella can pull you down in a match and get away with it?”

On the same theme Kildare delegate Martin McEvoy posed a similar question about the GAA’s youngest recruits: “Do we say that we’re delighted to have that child for the future of the game and at the same time allow that same child to be tripped, pulled down and third-man tackled?”

O’Neill’s arguments were backed up on Sunday in two respects. One, the level of undisciplined abandon was high for such a big match, and two, the match also demonstrated the inadequacy of the rule book and its punishments as they exist.

There was more than one incident of a hurley being thrown in the match. Kilkenny’s Tommy Walsh received a ticking for doing so in the 57th minute. A caution is the punishment under the playing rules (5.22) for doing so “in a manner which constitutes a danger to another player(s)”.

Yet attempting to strike an opponent with the hurl (5.2 and 5.3) or “to behave in any way which is dangerous to an opponent” (5.9) are red-card offences. There is therefore a range of options for the same offence, ranging from a virtual slap on the wrist to instant dismissal and suspension.

It may be hardly surprising in the prevailing climate that the course of action taken in the circumstances was the line of least resistance but the rules are contradictory. The main reason the offence wasn’t included in the experimental yellow-card infractions was that apparently it had become nearly extinct in recent years – not that such endangerment was obvious on Sunday.

Another reason why the reaction to what happened will be crucial is that the match constitutes the first challenge for the new disciplinary committees of GAA president Christy Cooney. The decisions taken will set the tone for the next three years.

The laboured process of the disciplinary system will also come under the microscope. The CCCC should be empowered to intervene on the basis of video evidence. The compromise currently in force, requiring the committee to ask the referee if he is happy with his original decision, is flawed.

The only reason the approach has worked to the extent it has is that match officials appear to accept the communication from CCCC is more than a mere request. But referees are under no obligation to agree to revisit contentious decisions.

Nor should they be. If a referee errs on the side of leniency in a match, asking him to admit it in public is needlessly embarrassing. In the case of the referee in question, Cork’s John Sexton, the matter is doubly awkward, as his own county faces Tipperary in the championship at the end of the month and his reassessment could lead to Cork receiving an advantage through suspension of a potential opponent.

In the immediate case, if we accept he was within his rights to deal with Walsh as he did, Sexton should have to admit at least that his tickings were wrong in relation to Hugh Maloney’s pull across the upper body of Aidan Fogarty and Eddie Brennan’s head-high “tackle” on Paul Curran.

But the committee in charge should be making those calls and assessing the evidence to come to its own conclusions.

Then if severe suspensions were deemed appropriate to result in championship suspension the lack of match bans could mean – although not in this case – that players from one team would miss a championship match whereas their opponents wouldn’t simply because of the championship calendar.

There is a pressing need to push ahead with reform of the playing rules even if unfortunately that can’t happen for another year. Sunday’s match might have been a white-knuckle ride of an afternoon but unless firm action is taken to punish rule breaking, what sort of a message is going out for the championship ahead?

e-mail: smoran@irishtimes.com