YESTERDAY MORNING John Maughan explained how, caught in a wearying pincer movement between the displeasure of the mob and official intrigue, he had decided resignedly to walk away from his position as Roscommon manager.

The atavistic abuse was such that, according to his friend and former colleague Tom Carr, Maughan had become unwilling to allow his family attend matches because of what he knew would be the rancorous atmosphere.

It's an old theme but it becomes more and more recurrent: for many within the GAA, just as for many outside, the only thing that matters is the bottom line and how self-interest might most aggressively be pursued with little thought to propriety or even basic manners.

If your team isn't performing as well as you believe it should, blame the manager and do so as irrationally and boorishly as possible.

This may not be specific to the GAA or Roscommon but it's now an established part of Gaelic games.

If the rules get in the way, kick and scream about "inconsistency". Pull any stroke to see if the notoriously porous committee network might be impressed by contrived twisting of the rulebook or if a little legal magic can be conjured up at the Disputes Resolution Committee (although current figures show that, thankfully, that particular route is becoming less frequented). React like a scalded cat to any decisions that cut across your or your team's or your club's interests. Adopt a default setting of hostility towards authority, blaming it for whatever woes befall - regardless of what was self-inflicted.

Decry Croke Park as being too materialistic and too interested in cutting juicy deals with the corporate world and grumble about how little of this largesse trickles down to the grassroots.

In fact the recent annual financial presentation at Croke Park showed that the GAA paid out nearly its entire profit, €19,754,595, in operating and capital grants, leaving only €236,134 as a surplus.

So great was the sensitivity about the rental income for rugby and soccer internationals that the stadium PLC simply handed it all over untouched to Central Council rather than get involved with it any further and risk complicating the promise that every cent of that revenue stream would go back to the organisation rather than to the stadium.

How much of the aforementioned is systemic and how much is simply a reflection of the wider social attitudes? And crucially, how much can be resolved by patiently addressing what are often imaginary grievances?

A good example is the current furore about the forfeits awarded in respect of Cork's failure to fulfil the first two fixtures in its NFL and NHL programmes. There has been a great deal of complaint - not least from counties that face relegation from divisions featuring Cork - that the county got special treatment and the rules were bent to prevent its expulsion from the leagues.

Roscommon and Wexford were supposed to be on the verge of challenging what had happened at the DRA. By Monday neither challenge had formally materialised.

Maybe I can save them the bother.

The Central Competitions Control Committee was entirely correct in its reaction to the Cork situation. In the section of the Official Guide "League Competitions" Rule 136 states the penalty for each unfulfilled fixture is the "award of game to opposing team" plus a minimum fine of €400 for the county in default (admittedly that could have been maxed up but that's the only valid complaint).

All the talk of starting Cork on minus four points and playing all the matches is nuts. For a start, the NFL is already in trouble because of fixtures that had to be postponed, so finding a date for Dublin (who have already had two matches called off - plus a scheduled trip to Páirc Uí Rinn that was only pulled at a day's notice) to play Cork would have been tricky.

Aside from logistics there is absolutely no provision in the rule book for deducting imaginary points in respect of non-fulfilment of fixtures. The penalty is in Rule 136 as stated above. The rule does have a reference to Rule 116 (don't try this at home without bearing in mind that the version on the GAA website incorrectly cites Rule 115), stating that the regulations outlined therein "in relation to the league part of a championship shall likewise apply to league competitions".

The relevant part of the rule is subsection (5), containing three paragraphs and three sub-paragraphs all of which simply outline the mechanics of organising a league competition, such as two points for a win, how teams on equal points are to be separated, etc.

Even the "exception" cited states, "if the accumulated scores of a team so involved are affected by a disqualification, retirement or walkover, the tie shall be decided by a play-off".

Wexford, unlike Roscommon, have concluded their campaign and sit level on points - but behind on scoring difference - with Dublin but both teams played all of their scheduled matches so neither could be said to have been "affected by a walkover".

Rule 118, dealing with disqualification, confines its provisions to penalties for failing to fulfil championship matches, including the league stage of championships, but makes no reference to ordinary leagues.

In summary, there is no provision in rule under which Cork could have been disqualified from the National Leagues. Central Council did set a limit of "two strikes and you're out" but that was chiefly designed to inject some urgency into the situation.

In any event Central Council can't act contrary to the Official Guide. The current debate concerning the Government awards scheme is a case in point. Opponents of the scheme are claiming it runs counter to Rule 11, governing amateur status, but Central Council rejects that and insists the proposals are compatible with the rule.

As the supreme governing body of the GAA, next week's annual congress will make that call - unless the upcoming DRA hearing makes a determination to the contrary.

In other words, Central Council couldn't disqualify Cork because that would be contrary to what the rulebook specifies as the punishment for the county's sins of omission.

It might not be how everyone would have sorted out the problem but them's the rules. If you don't like it, change them.