DRA to consider appeal tomorrow

Gaelic Games Championship 2006 news round-upThe GAA's Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA) has confirmed they will meet tomorrow evening in a final effort to resolve the substitution controversy surrounding Offaly's win over Kildare in their Leinster football quarter-final on May 28th.

Last week the GAA's Central Appeals Committee (CAC) rejected Kildare's petition that Offaly had misapplied the blood substitution rule, and the DRA will now give their legal verdict and take the side of either the CAC or Kildare.

The three members of the DRA tribunal were also confirmed last night, and will consist of barrister Rory Mulcahy, solicitor Brian Rennick, and, interestingly, the former Dublin football manager Kevin Heffernan.

The DRA was set up at Congress 2005, independent of the GAA, with the panel members comprising solicitors, barristers, arbitrators and persons "who, by virtue of their experience and expertise in the affairs of the association, are properly qualified to resolve disputes relating to the rules of the association".

While it's anticipated the DRA will announce their verdict tomorrow evening, the Leinster Council didn't take any chances and decided to move the semi-final involving Wexford and either Offaly or Kildare back another week to July 2nd - where it will be staged as a double-bill in Croke Park along with the Leinster hurling final.

But with the controversy dragging on for another week at least the patience of Wexford manager Paul Bealin appears to be running thin. His team find themselves preparing for a Leinster semi-final a fortnight later than planned, having seen it postponed twice by a week, and they're still no clearer on who the opposition will be.

"What I really can't understand is why the whole thing has dragged on so long," says Bealin. "When the Leinster Council originally met they should have been able to make a decision, but for some reason sat on the fence. Now we're three weeks down the road and we still don't know where we are. I don't think High Court action can be ruled out yet and who knows how long that might take.

"So I just think the whole thing was very badly handled in the first place. Obviously there is some grey area in the rules, but that doesn't mean it should have been dragged out this long. And to be honest it has become a problem for us. It's been a huge distraction . . ."

"Once it was changed to the 25th, we definitely felt it wouldn't be changed again. It also means we'll have gone five weeks without a competitive game. You prepare for a date, and base all the training around that, but we find ourselves having to change those preparations along the way."

Last week the Leinster Council decided Wexford's semi-final would be played along with the Laois-Dublin semi-final at Croke Park, but that will now be a stand-alone fixture. Coincidentally, the last time Leinster faced such a schedule crisis was back in 1991, when Bealin was involved with Dublin and their four first-round games with Meath.

"That put back the Leinster championship by seven or eight weeks," admits Bealin. "Meath beat us by a point, and then drew with Wicklow in the next game. And of course I appreciate as well that it's even more difficult for Offaly and Kildare, who don't even know if they're in a Leinster semi-final or not. I feel for them as well.

"But all this means whoever wins this semi-final only has two weeks to prepare for the Leinster final. That's not ideal either, especially when the other side of the draw is not being disrupted at all, and Dublin and Laois have been able to prepare the way they want. But we're trying to staying positive."

There are other positives. Wexford will have both football and hurling supporters in Croke Park on July 2nd, with the hurlers playing Kilkenny in the Leinster final: "That will make a small difference, yes. That's the only real plus, as well as giving the few guys we have with niggling injuries a chance to get fully right."

Kildare have insisted they'll take the matter to the highest powers possible, which suggested High Court action, and yet because of the Arbitration Act, some misconduct in the arbitration process would usually have to be established before the courts would intervene.