Although the Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA) has run into some difficulties, it is a good idea that should be persisted with and made work, argues An Fear Rua …

Criticising the GAA for making rule or organisational changes that don’t seem to work is a favoured pastime in club, pub, playing field or wherever else fans or players are gathered.

Sometimes, it has to be said, ‘Dis Great Association of Ours’ can give legitimate occasion for such critical comments. The confusion and U turns associated with the experimental playing rule changes earlier this year are a good example. Over the years, too, there have been numerous re-vamps of the formations for leagues and championships, none of which ever seemed to command a broad consensus of support, with the possible exception of the additional qualifiers in both the hurling and football championships. That is why – for once – it makes a pleasant change to be able to express an unqualified welcome for at least one report on rule changes emanating from a major GAA committee.

AFR refers, of course, to the report of the Rule Book Task Force, chaired by Cork County Committee Secretary, Frank Murphy, that doyen of interpreters of the Official Guide and the Playing Rules – a man reputed to idly peruse a dog-eared copy of the Rules over his bowl of breakfast porridge, betimes. Frank was ably assisted on the Task Force by no less a personage than the former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Justice Hugh O’Flaherty - a passionate follower of Kerry football - Mícheál O’Connell, the barrister son of Kerry’s legendary star, Mick O’Connell and Liam Keane, a solicitor who is no stranger to the progressive Dunshaughlin club in county Meath.

The challenge facing the Task Force should not be underestimated. Last year, it looked as if the traditional Irish weakness for litigation had finally caught up with the GAA and a trickle of High Court cases involving inter-county players disputing disciplinary findings was threatening to become a tsunami. The bugbear in all of this is the provision in the Irish Constitution guaranteeing every citizen a right to fair procedures in any matter, especially where their livelihood, personal integrity or good name is involved. The courts have consistently ruled that those constitutional rights override even the most explicit attempt to exclude them in the rules of any organisation, including the GAA.

In the end, the new disciplinary procedures drafted by the Task Force have the inestimable merit of being simple, clear and legally elegant. They provide for the establishment of a new Central Appeals Committee which will take over all the appeals previously dealt with by the Games Administration Committee, the Management Committee or Central Council. The new Committee’s decisions will be final and binding and the intention clearly is that most disciplinary cases will terminate in front of this committee.

However, where a player, club or county is still dissatisfied they can appeal to a new Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA). The DRA will have its own Arbitration Secretary, who will be appointed for three years by Congress, on the recommendation of Central Council. The DRA will deal with appeals arising from any allegations of procedural irregularities before the Central Appeals Committee.

Most importantly, the Rule Book will be changed to ensure that the DRA conforms to the entire provisions of Irish statute law on Arbitration. Thus, anyone invoking the new appeals procedure will be voluntarily subjecting themselves to the general law on arbitration. Arbitration is now a recognised and well-established aspect of Irish legal and commercial life and the courts are extremely reluctant to interfere in a valid arbitration process because they recognise that it involves procedures that are transparent and fair to all the parties involved. Indeed, because effective, voluntary arbitration reduces the volume of litigation coming before them, the courts are very supportive of the concept. Thus, anyone taking an appeal to the DRA will find it virtually impossible to establish a basis to ground a High Court appeal on procedural grounds and will find the Court reluctant to intervene.

The Secretary of the DRA will maintain a panel of between fifteen and thirty experts, split between barristers and solicitors – who will be voluntary - as well as experienced GAA administrators, but these will not include any serving officers at county, provincial or national level. An appeal tribunal to hear a case will consist of a lawyer plus two arbitrators. Anyone opting for a DRA appeal will have to deposit €500 in advance but can be accompanied at the hearing by a solicitor. They will also have the right to veto any proposed member of the appeal tribunal. The DRA will have power to award damages and costs and will be able to meet very quickly to resolve appeals. It strikes AFR that €500 plus a solicitor is a lot better bet for a player than a costly and time-consuming jaunt down to the Four Courts.

While the volume of GAA disciplinary cases going before the courts may die out, that does not mean that the overall volume of disciplinary disputes will diminish. Indeed, the likelihood is that the new Central Appeals Committee and the Disputes Resolution Authority will be extremely busy. A useful adjunct to their operation would be if both bodies, but especially the DRA, would regularly publish the precise grounds on which individual appeals have either been accepted or rejected. In that way, a body of appeals precedents – or GAA disciplinary ‘case law’ – could be built up that would make for consistency and certainty in dealing with future cases. This is a concept that is readily understandable by legal practitioners and would be welcomed by them.

It is virtually impossible to construct a disciplinary code that completely excludes judicial review by the superior courts. The best that may be hoped for is that recourse to the courts will be kept to an absolute minimum, and then only on interpretation of points of law rather in a dispute over fairness or otherwise of procedure. The proposed new GAA disciplinary code goes about as far as it is humanly and legally possible to go in providing a fair system that will be upheld by the courts in 99.9% of cases. This is not some academic, legal point. In fact, it means that important games in future will take place against a background of clarity about the disciplinary procedures and greater certainty about disciplinary outcomes. That should eliminate much of the unseemly inter-county wrangling that occurs over disciplinary allegations in major games and make for a better environment for players to ply their skills.

For that achievement, compliments are due to everyone involved, including the outgoing President, Seán Kelly, who set up the original review of the disciplinary rules. It may well be that the GAA’s response to the complex issues involved could be a model that other sports and voluntary organisations can follow. Furthermore, it underlines the value of combining the best of professional expertise, with a genuine ‘feel’ for the GAA, with the Association’s own experienced administrators in producing solutions to difficult problems.

The GAA has now done its bit. The rest is up to the players, mentors and referees: to know the rules, to play by the rules and to enforce them firmly and fearlessly. The new disciplinary procedure will be there if you feel you hard done by, but there will no longer be any legal pretext for not accepting the outcome of the Association’s disciplinary procedures. If, like Mr. Bumble in Dickens’s ‘Oliver Twist’ you believe that ‘The Law, sir, is a hAss!’ then Frank Murphy and his eminent colleagues have done more than their share to turn the poor animal away from our playing fields and out to pastur