ON GAELIC GAMES: OVER THE border from Cavan, Patrick Kavanagh succinctly reflected the importance of locality that's so central to the enduring appeal of Gaelic games. In the poem Epic he frets how, compared to the imminent second World War, the humdrum events of life in Monaghan struggle to inspire timeless verse.

“Till Homer’s ghost came whispering to my mind. / He said: I made The Iliad from such. A local row. Gods make their own importance.”

Whereas it might be stretching things to suggest an equivalence between Seánie Johnston and Helen of Troy – for all that they are both serious talents being squabbled over by proud warrior peoples – in the current epic being played out between Cavan and Kildare, the controversy about his proposed transfer from the former to the latter shines a light on an integral aspect of the GAA and has potentially damaging consequences.

If the ties that bind players to where they come from are to be loosened to the extent that a player can switch club and county purely in pursuit of intercounty football, what will the impact be on the GAA ecosystem of affiliations and local loyalties that have evolved over the past 130 years? Does the GAA want to create a caste of player, who is free to seek an intercounty outlet wherever he goes and regardless of where his personal allegiances most obviously arise?

Johnston’s case is not unique but it is uniquely focused in that his exclusive interest in Kildare is in wearing the county’s jersey. Plenty of players have exploited the GAA’s surprisingly accessible rules on transfer to move to other counties, take up jobs, residence and a new club and then start playing for the destination county.

But all of that could be said to require a permanent commitment to the community in question and is equally, more or less, in keeping with the rules on locality and the centrality of the club to the association.

Johnston, a gifted and well-known player, was emphatic that, having been omitted from a preliminary Cavan panel, he wished to continue his intercounty career; in fact his first attempt at securing the transfer was based on the idea that he might be able to play for Kildare while maintaining his membership of and involvement with Cavan Gaels.

That was clearly incompatible with the rules that govern inter-club and not intercounty transfer and so the subsequent applications were made. The first of those came up short on the question of residence: had Johnston actually switched his home from Cavan where he works to Kildare? The second application, which brings us up to date, also foundered on the Central Competitions Control Committee verdict that residence in Kildare had not been established.

But there was also a second consideration introduced: the ethos-based objection, citing Rule 6.1: “As the Gaelic Athletic Association is community-centred, based on the allegiance of its members to their local clubs and counties, the transfer and declaration rules in this Official Guide and in county bye-laws reflect that ethos. A player is considered to owe allegiance and loyalty to his home club and county, as defined in these rules.”

This was the decision to refuse the transfer that Johnston successfully appealed to the Central Appeals Committee. The CAC finding was that, as neither Cavan nor Cavan Gaels had objected within 10 days of the application, the appeal was successful. The decision of the CAC looked strange. By allowing the appeal on the technical basis that the objections to the transfer were out of time, CAC appeared to accept that the CCCC, which also took issue with the move, has only a rubber stamping function in relation to intercounty transfers.

To an extent the relevant rule is capable of that interpretation. Rule 6.10 (b) states: “In the case of an intercounty transfer, an application shall be granted if there is no objection from the county the player is leaving within 10 days of the forwarding of the application to the county by the Central Council or Provincial Council, as appropriate.”

But this is apparently contradicted by Rule 6.9, which states: “A player who wishes to play for a club in another county must apply for a transfer to the Provincial or Central Council, as appropriate. Such application shall not be granted unless the player is in permanent residence in the new county, or is declaring for his home club under Rule 6.5.”

The CCCC by their decision of May 18th stated that the residence requirement hadn’t been satisfied. Given the CAC simply allowed the appeal without commenting on the substantive questions of a) residence, or b) the ethos-based grounds, the CCCC isn’t entirely sure of its next step and is expected to look for clarification.

Coincidentally last month’s annual congress passed a bundle of new rules governing the area of playing eligibility, transfers and declarations. The only one that affected Johnston’s case was the provision that a player who wanted to change county allegiance first had to play a championship match for his new club.

Johnston has so far been unable to satisfy this requirement, as his successful appeal hadn’t been granted in time for him to play for proposed new club St Kevin’s in this month’s county championship fixture.

But were all of the new rules passed by congress to have come into force there would have been no ambiguity to exploit, as the new rule accepted by congress, introduces a critical redrafting. Whereas it states, just as the old wording does, that “the application shall be granted if there is no objection from the county the player is leaving within 10 days” it makes that subject to sub-rule (b), which stipulates that “such application shall not be granted unless the player is in permanent residence in the new county,” something the CCCC have already decided is not the case.

In the meantime the Johnston case is unresolved. Regardless of what happens next, and as the status quo is so ambiguous, it would be in everyone’s interest to get an opinion from the Disputes Resolution Authority.

That body could be asked to reconcile the contradiction between the old 6.9 and 6.10 and also to give a ruling as to whether the ethos expressed in 6.1 is merely a decorative platitude or represents an element of the GAA’s identity that is important and deserving of protection.