WITH a storm beginnings to whip up over incidents at the end of Sunday's Connacht semi-final, it was an appropriate weekend to peruse some of the findings of a study conducted by Declan Kearney at Liverpool's John Moores University.

Titled "Physical contact, lout play and success in Gaelic football", this is an academic submission but one that crystalises some issues in the real world of the sport currently undergoing a top-level-review in Croke Park.

The sample size of the analysis is 19 matches from the 1995 and 1996 football championships in all four provinces. The author acknowledges that the sample may not be large enough, but it constitutes over 25 per cent of the total matches played in those years and so can be taken as indicative of trends in football.

From a non-specialist - and probably also from an administrative - perspective, the most important finding is the disturbing one that "successful teams were found to commit significantly more fouls than unsuccessful teams".

The immediate response to that might be why wouldn't they? Neither the deterrents on the pitch nor those in the committee room work adequately in what should be their primary function protecting the more skilful player.

A parallel indication that forwards commit more fouls than defenders is no surprise. Frequently, forwards know how to do enough to frustrate an opposing defender without ending up in the referee's book. In this way, play can be broken down and a team's momentum slowed.

This incentive to foul cuts both ways. The problems which players encounter in converting penalties have recently received a wide audience in the wake of the three kicks missed at the Leinster championship double bill in Croke Park two weeks ago.

The least publicised of the failures was that of Wicklow's Keith Byrne. It was also the most outrageous. Kevin O'Brien had virtually rounded the goalkeeper when he was up-ended. In rugby it would certainly have been a penalty try. Instead, a penalty was awarded and driven high and wide.

It wasn't that important in the context of the match, as Offaly won well and in all likelihood could have weathered the concession of a goal. But it was as vivid an illustration of how it pays to foul as could be imagined - concession of three points averted by ignoring the rules.

That's on the field. Off it, the situation is crackers. Take the Mayo- Leitrim match. It's important to point out that as I have yet to see a video recording of what happened, the following is a general observation.

Given that the Connacht championship is an extraordinarily elongated phenomenon, taking 11 weeks to sort out six teams - on a knockout basis - Mayo have five weeks before their provincial final and, should they, as expected, overcome Sligo, nine weeks, before an All-Ireland semi-final. Accordingly, they can afford quite substantial suspensions should the Connacht Council decide to impose them after investigating Sunday's incidents. Obviously the same considerations would apply to Leitrim had they progressed.

With deterrents failing to restrain foul play, the focus falls on the nature of the fouls and how they can be eliminated. Kearney's study indicates that the overwhelming majority of fouls committed are aggressive rather than technical.

Again, this is not particularly surprising as most opportunities to foul arise when players come into physical contact when competing for the ball. At the heart of these contests is ambiguity. Physical contact is not allowed except in fairly circumscribed circumstances - the side or shoulder challenge - but it takes place all the time.

If every foul were to be strictly whistled up, there'd be hardly any play. Who can tell whether any collision is accidental? How much accidental bumping is to be allowed when a forward is running full tilt at a defender?

The result of all these considerations is that vital decisions are taken by referees on the basis of interpretation and discretion. It is noticeable talking to players and others involved in the game that the highest accolade a good referee can receive is not "fair" or "observant" but that he has "a bit of commonsense

Referees with commonsense are trusted by players to make the right call, or a reasonable quota of right calls, most significantly in relation to the advantage rule, and accordingly their authority is accepted.

(Generally, though, a referee's authority is not widely accepted and the tendency to dissent is absolute, as demonstrated by the story of the inter- county footballer playing a bit of rugby and treating the referees as he would one of his own, unaware that rugby officials will, happily march your team from one end of the pitch to the others until you button your lip.)

This selective acceptance favours the more ad hoc interpreters who keep the match flowing as best they can. Unfortunately, not that many referees are capable of this form of extempore virtuosity, and mastery of it inevitably leads a referee further from the rule book which should be a protection for referees as well as players.

Without the qualities to wing it, ordinary referees are left to fall back on a rule book which is overly complicated and widely ignored. There are 62 rules - or three rules with 62 sections - governing fouls.

It would be impossible to find a match where even a substantial number of these provisions was consistently applied. This leads to uncertainty amongst players and causes managers to compile fat manuals on how to play referees, according to their individual emphases.

Most unusually for any sport, football is in a position where scores can be frequently deemed invalid on video analysis. A few years ago, the score selected as "Goal of the Year" was plainly illicit by reason of overcarrying.

Of course, it's impossible to eliminate all errors relating to scores, but they should not proliferate. And it's not just scores.

The amount of revisionism possible on reviewing a football video indicates a game where rules are not properly applied.

The problem outlined in Declan Kearney's report - that rules are being ignored with impunity - which must be faced by the Football Development Committee is not caused by referees failing to apply rules and thereby causing confusion. It is caused by the rules being unworkable.

Arguing otherwise is to suggest that football referees are unaccountably less competent than their hurling counterparts, who are not involved in such constant controversy.

Changing the rules of a game is not an admission of failure. At the end of the day, the rules are there to facilitate the game, not to become an arcane body of work in their own right. They should reflect changing trends, such as the fitness and pace of the modern game.

If that simple truth hadn't been accepted by the GAA at various stages over the years, we'd still have eight posts and 42 players on a field.