There should be no option to ‘go nuclear’ over minor breaches
CLUB FINAL’S LATE DRAMA PROVED THAT GAA MUST SIMPLIFY ITS RULE BOOK
DIARMUID ‘the Rock’ O’Sullivan’s flirtation with football once threatened to cost Cork a Munster football title. That should not in any way be construed as a slight on the three-time All-Ireland hurling winner’s big-ball skills, but as a reminder that the GAA rule book is as adept at legislating for chaos as it is for providing law and order.
It was the 2002 replay in Páirc Uí Chaoimh. Larry Tompkins’ team, fresh from being held to a draw by Tipperary the previous weekend, took matters in hand and dished out a 19-point hammering to the unfortunate Premier County men.
Colin Corkery chose that afternoon to put on a kicking masterclass by knocking over 11 points and, with six minutes left and Cork with a 17-point buffer, Tompkins decided to give the local faithful an opportunity to applaud his star man off the field while giving O’Sullivan some rare big-game time.
In the end, it almost cost them the match. O’Sullivan was Cork’s fifth regular substitution but, in the early days of the rule, they had also introduced a blood sub, which meant they had used 21 players instead of the permitted 20. As it stood, having won the game by a whopping margin, for 24 hours the understanding was that they would have to forfeit the title under GAA rule.
That was until Cork’s then long-serving secretary Frank Murphy successfully argued the case at a Munster Council meeting the following evening that forfeiture of the game was not a sanction available to the council because it only applied to a breach of the five regular sub rule.
However, earlier that year Kildare, for an identical breach of rule in a league game against Sligo, were forced to forfeit the two league points they had won by Croke Park’s Games Administration Committee.
Murphy’s success was not all down to his Rumpole of the Bailey impersonation, but also to the fact that Tipperary made it clear they had no interest in either winning the title by forfeiture or in securing another replay.
Nor for that matter had Munster GAA chiefs the stomach for overturning an emphatic result on an irrelevant technicality.
It is likely that Croke Park shared that same view this week in not taking up the option of launching what would have been a very brief investigation to establish that Kilmacud Crokes breached the rules by having 17 players — 16 of whom were active in defending a last-gasp 45 by Kilmacud Crokes in last Sunday’s All-Ireland final.
Instead, they suggested the onus was on Glen to lodge an objection, which the Derry club have done. It is possible to both understand the GAA’s strategy while having sympathy with the position Glen was placed in.
It has been argued that Croke Park, with the evidence, should have immediately taken charge of the situation, noted the breach of rule and either fined Kilmacud, overturned the result and ordered a replay, or ruled that Kilmacud would forfeit the title.
Instead, in putting the onus on Glen they asked a question that sought to penetrate an unwieldy rule and get to the core sporting truth; did the Derry club truly believe that Kilmacud’s momentary breach of rule cheated them out of the result? Rather than the hysterical commentary that Croke Park’s failure to respond immediately by overturning the result amounting to a slight on the GAA’s integrity, the question asked of Glen was if they felt the disadvantage they inadvertently suffered had cost them the game and therefore merited getting a second chance. Their manager Malachy O’Rourke’s instinctive answer post match was that it didn’t and, more often than not, the truth is told in the heat of the moment rather than when subjected to the process of mature reflection. The bottom line is that the GAA law is an ass, not fit to deliver justice but rather provide opportunity where none should exist. Pretend for a moment that instead of having his late goal chance saved, Conor Glass rounded Conor Ferris and was pulled to the ground but denied a penalty to win the game because the referee erred in not awarding it.
Had that happened, given the potential impact it would have on the outcome, Glen would have potent reason to feel aggrieved but, correctly, would have no avenue of appeal as the referee’s decision is final.
Instead, for one play and with the ball 45 metres from the goal, because 16 players rather than 15 were on the field defending – the
Bottom line is that the GAA law is an ass
argument is that it robbed Glen of the goal they needed to win the All-Ireland.
True, Dara Mullin — the player who should have left the pitch — was standing on the goal line but, had he not been there, one of his team-mates would surely have had the wit to drop back there.
Any material impact of the breach of rule incurred for a single play on the final result is so abstract that no rational argument can be made to suggest it warranted the result being overturned.
But the GAA rule book does not always bend to rationale. The lesson to be heeded is the overarching need for the GAA to overhaul and simplify its rule book, and resist the temptation of offering up the chance to press the nuclear button for breaches of rule that have minimal impact.
A sanction that demands a team forfeit a game or have the result overturned to facilitate a replay should be as a result of such a grievous breach of rule that its consequences altered the game.
That did not apply last weekend, and for those who argue that the GAA would suffer ‘reputational damage’ if it did not overturn the result, the opposite is the case when it does, even though there is no evidence to suggest that the result was compromised by an inadvertent rule breach.A simplified rule book would ensure the referee would assume complete responsibility for ensuring the correct number of players are on the pitch.
And, if a breach occurs, the referee’s report would dictate if it was inadvertent or deliberate, and any disciplinary action would be dictated by the intent of the offenders and the consequences of those actions on the outcome.
Either way, the matter would be decided by the ultimate arbitrators of the rules when it matters most – during the game.
And, in the process, the GAA would not be exposed to the kind of damage that is caused when you insist on being armed with a sledgehammer to crack a nut.