Time to hit those well-worn keys again: yet another disciplinary scandal for the GAA. As disheartening as the constant drip of rank corruption from tribunal-land, the litany of lawlessness on and off the playing fields continues to blight Gaelic games. Events of the weekend were all the more depressing given that we were hoping for more from the new Games Administration Committee. Instead, the GAC are picking up the pieces of their shattered credibility.

The weekend saw dramatically contrasting fates for Cork hurler Diarmuid O'Sullivan and Geoffrey McGonigle, the Derry dual player who will now miss his county's Ulster campaigns in both football and hurling in a year when he stood a great chance of winning provincial medals in both codes.

His suspension of two months was for verbal abuse of a match official in a club fixture. The county board felt that he had been merely lamenting - albeit in forthright language - the amount of injury-time played rather than personally abusing the referee. This metaphysical distinction was based on a feeling that the offence didn't warrant a two-month suspension.

Leaving aside the administrative absurdity of county boards being able to influence disciplinary procedures on their own inter-county players, this decision was well-meant. GAA president Sean McCague visited the county over the weekend and when asked for his opinion on McGonigle's availability, replied that once the referee cites a player for verbal abuse, the suspension is a mandatory two months.

So at a relatively advanced stage, McGonigle - not originally selected pending his hearing - had his fate sealed. Verbal abuse of match officials is only one of the indicators of indiscipline in football and hurling but it is an important one. Referees find it difficult enough to impose order in matches without players feeling free to undermine that authority. This constituted the third instance in a month of a high-profile player receiving two months for this offence. It also showed the GAC's welcome inclination to intervene in internal county affairs.

So far so good. Except that on Friday morning a stunning announcement was issued from Croke Park on behalf of the GAC. It simply stated that no further action would be taken against Cork full back Diarmuid O'Sullivan, the man he was marking, Limerick's Brian Begley, or indeed others involved in a subsequent melee. This concluded a week of controversy in the aftermath of a fracas during which O'Sullivan was seen on television to strike Begley with his hurley.

O'Sullivan's deliverance from the stark consequences of his actions, prescribed in Rule 137 as three months, was justified on the grounds that the referee Aodan MacSuibhne had been fully aware of what had taken place when he booked both players.

This rationale rests on the basis that once a referee takes action, the matter is closed. This is not in itself an unreasonable principle. In fact it was staunchly defended in this column last year when, during the month of May, there was a hot fashion for trying to overturn match results at committee level.

Carlow had protested the decisions of referee Niall Barrett, who sent off six players in the county's defeat by Westmeath. Two weeks later, Tipperary were up in arms over a goal awarded to Kerry's Gerry Murphy who was later seen on television to have kicked the ball wide, collected the rebound from the stanchion and scored.

The argument here was that referees make mistakes, but that's part of what you buy into in field games because human arbiters are fallible. Therefore the GAC should stand over referee's decisions. But there are strong arguments why this does not apply to last week's case.

Firstly, reinforcing referees' authority is a generally good thing to do because disrespect for the official goes hand-in-hand with disrespect for the actual rules. When the referee himself deliberately disrespects the rules, it's not such a good idea to reinforce his authority.

Plainly, if Aodan MacSuibhne saw Diarmuid O'Sullivan striking Brian Begley and decided that a yellow card would suffice, he mustn't be given another match to referee this season. This might seem harsh on a referee who has taken charge of some great matches but it's unavoidable. Last year, a number of referees suffered because they hadn't been applying the rules in matches.

Monaghan football referee Pat McEnaney didn't get a further appointment after letting go some wild behaviour in the Munster final, while Dickie Murphy was criticised for his laissez-faire style of refereeing despite an admirable track record.

These indications of disapproval were welcome because, although those named are generally fine referees, the whole culture of discretionary application of the rules is doing great damage to efforts aimed at improving discipline. In other words, it's not a good idea to stand over failure to apply the rules.

A second reason why it was wrong to uphold MacSuibhne's authority is that whereas the allowing of invalid goals and confusion over the rules are relatively rare occurences, indiscipline is a chronic problem for the GAA.

Aside from the lack of consistency inherent in last week's decision - Clare's Colin Lynch was given three months in similar but less clearcut circumstances two years ago - there is the vital question of deterrence. What will more effectively discourage violent behaviour on the field: the constant fear of video surveillance or the permissive affirmation of last week?

Indiscipline is most damaging to the GAA's image when it occurs in big matches which have a large television audience. It is, therefore, not valid to say that video evidence is a selective weapon.

The GAC need to avail of every assistance to guard against the perception that Cork hurlers are answerable to different rules than Derry hurlers.

smoran@irish-times.ie