TONIGHT the Dublin county board meet in extraordinary session to begin the process of sorting out the chaos that has engulfed GAA administration in the capital over the last week. Part of this process will involve responding to and coping with the damage done to the association.

That damage has been done is indisputable. Dublin is - as the county has been insisting to both Croke Park and the Leinster Council - a special case. The GAA within the county, specifically Dublin city, has to contend with intense competition from other sports.

In a world where image is so important in defining the allegiances - sporting and otherwise - of children, spectacular public relations disasters like last week's are bound to have an impact.

Nothing can now be done to erase what happened. The Jason Sherlock Paddy Delaney episode will live on in the minds of anyone who wants to resurrect it to embarrass the GAA.

The difference between the current controversy and the RDS episode six years ago (when the proposed staging at the RDS of a Dublin Down challenge match on a double bill with a League of Ireland fixture was grudgingly allowed but later banned) is that the latter decision was handed down from Croke Park and inspired sympathy for Dublin's position, whereas the former is a cock up of Dublin's own devising.

BEYOND the image difficulties caused by the atavistic response to the demands of Sherlock's soccer scholarship lies a more substantial indictment of the county committee's decision - which has been obscured by the personalities at the centre of the row.

The facts speak for themselves, the implications have been more muted. An investigating committee appointed by a county committee looks into a complaint and finds that the vice chairman of the county board, Delaney, spat at Sherlock during an under 21 match.

A two month suspension is recommended but the entire finding is thrown out by a county committee that has heard none of the evidence but has been vigorously canvassed to elevate the old pals' act over requirements of justice and good order.

The investigating committee walks out in protest and two of its members resign their offices.

Ignore the personality of Sherlock, who has displayed remarkable forbearance in the face of rancid prejudice.

Ignore the jackass logic of the "trial by media" allegations level led by Delaney's supporters. Look at the rest of the defence case.

Delaney is by all accounts an affable man. Plenty of people have attested to his hard work on behalf of the Dublin GAA over a number of years, but that length of service doesn't constitute immunity from the rules of the association.

Last month at Congress when Dublin took their appeal against suspension from the Leinster under 21 championship to Central Council, Dave Billings, manager of the Dublin under 21s, also appealed his one year suspension.

The substance of the charge was that by his behaviour on taking to the pitch, he had triggered a mini riot.

Billings denied it and there was considerable sympathy for him.

Most knew that he had taken on the manager's job at short notice and had extensive credential as a GAA stalwart in Dublin.

Kerry delegate Ger McKenna spoke for a number present when he said he knew Billings and didn't believe that he had entered the field with the intention of starting what had followed.

Central Council knew, however, that such a consideration wasn't the point and, painful though they appeared to find the duty, they upheld the suspension.

Anyone before a GAA disciplinary committee is axiomatically someone who has served the association in some capacity, so service is hardly a compelling defence.

More serious than the offence Delaney was found to have committed - and it was serious enough - and his subsequent failure to apologise was the behaviour that surrounded the resolution of the matter.

By acquiescing to the subversion of the investigating committee, Delaney was seriously undermining the institution that he has served over the decades.

One of the major problems facing the GAA is discipline or the lack of it on playing fields. As well as sensible rules and consistent refereeing, discipline requires moral authority - the belief that it is right to obey the rules and that they will be applied without favour.

The moral authority of the county committee was shattered by its arbitrary decision to ignore due process, the outcome of an investigation it had commissioned, and favour a transgressor because he was a popular official and the complainant a much - and unjustly - resented player.

What does such a decision do for hard pressed referees who have to take unruly matches and uphold the rules?

How are players to assimilate a message that baldly states that some people don't deserve the protection of the rule book and others are immune from its strictures?

Paddy Delaney's statement at the weekend that he accepts the originally proposed suspension is inadequate. Suspensions that depend on the whim of the suspended aren't good for the business of discipline.

THERE has still been no apology for the original incident. The desire to save upset and further complication for his family, club, the Dublin GAA and the Dublin team is commendable but the same considerations have applied for the past week.

More serious is the failure to grasp the damage done to disciplinary structures in the county.

Noone would bar a county officer from his duties just because of a suspension earned in the heat of a hasty moment but when the imposed punishment is outrageously evaded there is only one honourable conclusion.

For the good of the GAA in Dublin, a cause he has served loyally, Paddy Delaney should resign as county vice chairman.

Furthermore the 30 delegates who collaborated, for whatever motives, in bringing disgrace to the organisation they're supposed to serve should also consider their positions.