Rule 42 debate: Seán Moran talks to a campaigner against GAA bans who argues the origins for the current debate go back 20 years.

Much of the current controversy surrounding Rule 42 is the result of an invalid amendment to the Official Guide 20 years ago, according to Tom Woulfe, the veteran campaigner against GAA bans, who was centrally involved in the campaign to abolish of the old rule prohibiting foreign games - which was finally successful at the 1971 annual congress in Belfast.

The principle of restricting the use of the GAA's grounds was leftover business from the decision of the 1971 Congress, deleting the ban on GAA members playing or attending soccer and rugby matches.

Although this reform was overwhelmingly carried by 30 counties (Sligo and Antrim dissenting) - as a result of a nationwide plebiscite conducted by clubs - it was opposed by then GAA president Pat Fanning, who won many plaudits for his dignified acceptance of the will of the membership.

Fanning proposed a package of proposals intended to assuage the fears of the traditionalist minority, to be debated at a special congress later that year. What we now know as Rule 42 - the prohibition on soccer and rugby being played on association grounds - was the product of this.

Woulfe says that the current Rule 42 is out of order on two grounds. Firstly he says that the two sections are in conflict with each other. He points out that section a) of the contentious rule states that GAA property ". . . shall be used only for the purpose of or in connection with the playing of the games controlled by the association and for such other purposes not in conflict with the aims and objects of the association that may be sanctioned from time to time by Central Council".

This was added at the 1985 special congress and it is a puzzling addition to the original section now called b), which states that "Grounds controlled by association units shall not be used or permitted to be used for horse racing, greyhound racing or for field games other than those sanctioned by Central Council".

"It was enacted at a special congress in 1985 that met to conduct a general revision of the rules. The problem provisions in section a) today - the limitations on the authority of the Central Council in regard to the letting of the grounds - came on board at that point," says Woulfe.

That section a) has been used by the GAA's Motions Committee, which vets Congress proposals, to rule out of order several motions over the past two years.

"The decision of that 1985 special congress," continues Woulfe, "to allow the motions that spawned the controversial provisions in section a) and elsewhere is inexplicable since they were manifestly in conflict with section b). No doubt they would have been ruled out of order by the much criticised Motions Committee.

"That committee came on board following a rule enacted at that special congress. Wasn't it odd that a body that met to update rules managed to put back the clock."

Woulfe says the second reason why the current provision is out of order is that it was invalidly proposed at the special congress of 1985 by Central Council. "It is only in the last 10 years that Central Council got the power to submit rule changing or enacting motions at congress."

That power was conferred after the special congress of 1997 to consider the reports of the Amateur Status Committee and the Congress Review Committee. The latter was overshadowed by the former but among the reforms it proposed was that Central Council and the provincial councils could propose motions for Congress. Before that there was no such power and any central initiatives had to be proposed through county conventions.