When news broke last weekend of an incident during a juvenile hurling blitz in Thurles during which an adult had allegedly taken to the field and grabbed one of the children playing in a physical confrontation, there was consternation.
For all the GAA’s problems with misbehaviour and violence directed at referees, reports of a child being attacked marked a new low.
There had, however, also been rumblings in Mayo about an incident in a minor (under-17) A football semi-final, between Westport and Castlebar Mitchels on September 25th, which was abandoned after an incident in which an adult had entered the field of play and been involved in an altercation with one of the players.
What happened next has caused the GAA, in Mayo particularly, great reputational damage. That is not all the fault of the county because the association’s complex disciplinary architecture and shortcomings in its rules combined with the deliberations of two committees to cause a firestorm.
‘The club is who we are’: Pure pride as Na Fianna look forward to first All-Ireland senior hurling final
Mayo fighting to keep the faith as old guard continue to bow out
Paul Casey and Derek Murray appointed joint managers of Dublin women’s team
Diarmuid O’Sullivan proud of Sarsfields’ progress as they look forward to final test
The matter was also passed on by Castlebar Mitchels to the Gardaí and Tusla, the state child protection agency.
Eventually the GAA side of things was dealt with by the county hearings committee on October 11th, which after what the Mayo News described as a “lengthy meeting” – believed to be more than three hours – suspended the adult from the touchline for two matches and ordered that the match be refixed.
[ Jennifer O’Connell: GAA running shy of stamping out violence Opens in new window ]
That end result however skips over the initial stages of the process. Someone accused of an infraction in the GAA essentially gets four shots at redemption, a hearing, appeal and arbitration. The first comes when the matter is considered by the Competitions Control Committee (CCC).
This step is very basic and generally involves the referee’s report and a recommendation of punishment based on it. Whoever is accused is offered a suspension or other penalty, which they may accept and the matter is closed.
Frequently the recommendation is not accepted and those affected opt for a hearing. At that stage, the CCC proposed punishment is taken off the table and the matter goes for a full hearing.
This is, hardly surprisingly, not well understood and often the proposed sanction is treated as a ban in itself and the option of a hearing described as an appeal.
A meeting of the Mayo Competitions Control Committee (CCC) on October 3rd had been held with representatives from both clubs present. That meeting recommended a 96-week suspension for the adult and that the match be awarded to Castlebar Mitchels.
As a result Mitchels in their public statement on Wednesday referred to the CCC proposals as actual impositions. These included a proposed fine for Castlebar for unauthorised recording of the match, which was accepted and paid, as well as the 96-week suspension and Westport expulsion, both of which were not accepted.
When the hearings committee convened, it was not entertaining an ‘appeal’ from Westport. It was hearing the whole matter from the start. Theoretically, although this is strictly angels dancing on the head of pins territory, the hearings committee isn’t supposed to know what the CCC recommended.
The problem with the 96-week proposal is that the highest penalty mentioned in the rule book is 48 weeks for assaulting match officials. That is a minimum and is to be doubled if the infraction is a repeat within a limited time period. Such suspensions have been handed down recently in Wexford and Roscommon.
Exceeding minimum punishments has in the past proved problematic for the GAA when such impositions have been challenged as far as the disputes tribunal, the DRA where the rationale behind them has been interrogated.
Although the GAA’s independent arbitration body has been hugely successful at preventing decisions being taken to civil courts, it has also required a level of legal precision that hasn’t always been easy despite the best efforts of a standing committee to update the rulebook in keeping with DRA decisions.
Westport’s argument would have been to ask what infraction was reported to have taken place. There is the omnibus charge of ‘discrediting the association’ but if it is seen to be simply a means of ramping up punishment, that too can be successfully challenged.
The rule under which the adult was eventually dealt with was under a non-playing heading: “Category IIIa (i) Any type of physical interference with an opposing player or team official”. The prescribed minimum penalty for this is a two-match sideline suspension, which is what was handed down.
Not everyone sees this as an appropriate punishment for what happened but that is what the rule book says.
Castlebar’s call for the competition to be suspended pending an investigation is unlikely to happen, as the matter has now been dealt with by the Mayo hearings committee.
That’s from the GAA’s point of view. What the Gardaí and Tusla decide to do is obviously beyond the association’s remit.
