Separation of powers gets broad approval

There are early signs of approval for the new disciplinary structures proposed by the GAA. The chairman of the current Central Games Administration Committee (CGAC), Tony O'Keeffe, believes the system of separating the charging committee from the hearing committee will work, not least because several counties already operate such a system.

The National Referee's Committee has also responded positively, despite some concerns the new system could further undermine the "sacred" powers of the referee. Their spokesman Fr Séamus Gardiner says the new system doesn't mark a major departure from current practice.

The lengthy proposal of the Rule Book Task Force - 50 pages of motions - still needs to go before congress on the weekend after next for approval en bloc, but for O'Keeffe, the benefit of the new system speaks for itself.

His term as chairman of the old GAC saw its responsibilities split between fixtures and discipline, after which his area of attention became fixtures, while disciplinary matters went to the newly formed Central Disciplinary Committee (CDC).

Under the task force proposals, the new Competitions Control Committee will assume the role of the old GAC, including the proposal of penalties, with the new hearings committee then hearing any challenge from the player or body involved.

"Although the new CCC will assume all the responsibilities of the present GAC, the big difference is that it will not include hearings of discipline," says O'Keeffe. "That end of things goes to the new hearings committee. So to put it in layman's language, the CCC would be the prosecutor, the hearings committee would be the judge, and the player would be the defendant. That's crude language but that's what it comes down to."

One of the earliest ambitions of the outgoing GAA president, Seán Kelly, was to split the GAC in terms of fixtures and discipline, mainly because of the workload involved. While the new system appears to give more responsibilities back to the GAC (or CCC), O'Keeffe believes the balance will still be right.

"The core demands in discipline are very much the hearings. If a player gets sent off for a straight red card the player gets the minimum month's suspension, and the CCC will note that. If he looks for a hearing, then the hearing committee will make the decision on that, and the CCC will note the result of that as well.

"So the focus of the new chairman of the CCC will remain on fixtures, but the hearings committee will be very much focused on discipline. The other important thing is the hearings committee is very much a separate committee, with no ties with CCC, which gives it a totally independent level. So the system remains very much split in terms of the core work.

"I do believe it can work. Most county officers have already been briefed by the members of the working committee, and more importantly a number of counties already operate with a separate hearings committee, Kerry being one of them. So the principal of it is definitely not unusual."

O'Keeffe's three-year term as chairman of the CGAC comes to an end at congress, as does the term of the current National Referee's Committee. During Monday's presentation of the new proposals it was suggested referees could be undermined, as the new CCC is empowered to ask them to look again at decisions - perhaps putting pressure on the referee to admit he erred.

Yet the referees' committee doesn't foresee problems.

"It has always been my experience, including my time on the Munster Council, that if we got a report in, the secretary was often authorised to contact the referee in order to clarify anything," explained Gardiner.

"If the referee said no to that then that was the end of it. He could clarify if possible. But he would never be asked to change his report . . . so words would never be put into his mouth.

"And two members of Rules Book Task Force - Dan McCartan, the previous chairman of our committee, and Frank Murphy - would be very au fait with refereeing matters. Frank was a referee himself."

Gardiner also welcomed the proposal for further clarity on striking with the hurl.

"To me that rule is too broad, because there is definitely a difference between hitting a tap on the behind and a very deliberate and dangerous stroke. As a hurling man I think I can say that myself.

"So the blanket rule for all players deemed guilty of striking is a little unfair. In the new proposals you can get a month for one type of striking and three months for another, which I do agree with."