Pity the GAC didn't come out fighting too

The Games Administration Committee's decisions in relation to the controversies of recent weeks will do little to further perceptions of the GAA's disciplinary system.

On the one weekend a fortnight ago, there was a mini-riot after a minor match between Laois and Cork and the following day an incident in which Kilkenny's Henry Shefflin suffered a nearly serious eye injury.

In neither case did the GAC take appropriate action. The array of fines and suspensions left both Cork and Laois cushioned against the excesses of their teams' actions in Limerick.

It's not comfortable for any organisation to have to expel under-age players from a major championship, but can it be seriously said the sanctions taken are more likely to deter such behaviour in the future than expulsion would?

The argument from the GAC is that they sought to force responsibility on the culpable individuals and not randomly punish the innocent. However, all disciplinary measures punish the collective as well as the individual and it would have been possible to impose suspensions as well as remove the counties from competition.

Instead, the replay of the drawn game is fixed for Thurles next Sunday. There is also an addendum that, maybe not intentionally, seeks to minimise the gravity of the disorder by pointing out that it "lasted for a duration of 62 seconds and not for three to five times longer as suggested in some reports".

It is to be hoped that disciplinary policy might come down heavily on any inclination to start such affrays rather than reward their brevity.

Within the counties there may well be relief that the match will go ahead and the whole unfortunate business consigned to the past.

All the passionate, voluntary efforts that go into preparing teams mean that there would be sympathy for any team who found themselves ignominiously thrown out in a committee room.There are, however, other audiences.

What are the wider membership and the general public to make of the failure to apply the most stringent sanction? One response would be that that there is a tolerance within the association for those occasions when otherwise commendable passions run wild and out of control. Equally, there are eminent people within the association who are of the opinion expulsion would have been the right thing to do.

The question again is which course of action would have made the bigger impact in discouraging indiscipline.

In relation to the Shefflin incident, the decision that Gerry Quinn has no case to answer is not of itself the main fault. Rather it is the manner in which the matter was disposed of - by simply adopting the referee's report.

A cursory glance at the video shows that Pat Horan wasn't well positioned to see what happened, any more than the main television cameras, which followed the ball.

That his reporting of what happened as not being foul play should be accepted as closing the matter is hard to accept when a different television angle provided at least a matter for further discussion. But that is the policy of the current GAC, which will not intervene to correct referee's decisions in relation to foul play despite a decision at Central Council that they could have that power.

The committee will argue that the power is poorly defined and lacks a policy back-up, but in the light of serious fouls frequently drawing inappropriate punishments, there is an onus to enforce the rules on anyone breaking them.

Hiding behind the referee's report is not extending useful support to the match official, but giving succour to those who break the rules.

The GAC have had a hard time of it recently. One member complains that whenever they are involved in controversy the existence of plans to redefine the committee's purpose is mentioned as if the GAC's inadequacy is the purpose of such assessment. Strictly speaking this is true.

The idea behind examining the role of the GAC was to lessen and redirect its workload. But such is the body's shortcomings - real and perceived - in addressing the problem of indiscipline that the prospect of a revamped disciplinary body has become the main hope vested in the review.

In other words, the GAC is helping to make itself obsolete.