News that the hurling community is apparently experiencing revivalist fervour about the need to be born again on the subject of calculated fouling – cleansed in the blood of the dragged-down forward – is welcome and timely.
It hardly looked possible just under a year ago when the proposal to extend the black card beyond football was unceremoniously rejected by 82 per cent of the delegates at congress, including the preponderance of those from hurling counties.
The scale of the defeat ruled out the same idea being advanced for another three years but equivalent measures intended to replicate the black card effect are thought likely to be heard at the end of the month when delegates gather remotely for this year’s assembly.
These are the award of penalties for fouling an opponent out of a goal chance, followed by 10 minutes in the sinbin.
Maybe the change of heart was influenced by the matches at the end of last year even though the litany of such fouls in the hurling championship was more a spirited maintenance of an established trend rather the breaking of new ground.
Anyway, this week's question is 'why does it take the GAA so long to do the right thing?'
We are currently 50 years to the week since the mother of all such processes: the painful and eventual acceptance that the old ban on foreign games, which forced young people to choose between Gaelic games and other sports, was a) insupportable and b) increasingly likely to create traffic in the wrong direction.
It's a decision that will probably be well commemorated in April with the actual anniversary of the 1971 congress in Belfast and the deletion of the old Rule 27 but the job had been done a couple of months in advance of that historic meeting.
Over the last two weeks of January that year, all of the GAA's county conventions took place and by February 1st, all but two of them – Antrim and Sligo – had voted to do away with the Ban.
Repeal the Ban
This marked the end of an epic transition for the association. As support for the notion of association members playing or attending rugby or soccer matches had been so low when previously raised, motions to repeal the Ban only arose every three years. The progression however was startling.
In 1962 seven delegates were in favour of a Carlow motion to delete it – the same day, Dublin’s proposal to appoint a committee to investigate the prohibition was beaten by more than four to one – but three years later that had risen to 52 and in 1968, 88 voted in favour but 220 against.
The key to turning around the issue was a Meath motion in 1970, proposing that the GAA conduct a plebiscite to ascertain the views of ordinary members. The views from the grassroots, as they gradually emerged, doomed the rule to extinction.
It culminated in such a massive turnaround that by Easter 1971, only 16 delegates opposed the Ban’s removal and a bar on patronising dances run by other sports organisations was also struck down.
There have been other long campaigns waged. The companion prohibition on members of the Northern security forces joining the association survived attempts to remove it on the same weekend 50 years ago and it would be 30 years before it disappeared just in time for the new PSNI to recruit.
The third of the infamous headline prohibitions, that preventing GAA grounds being used by certain other sports, primarily rugby and soccer, only came into force after the historic vote in 1971 – conceived as a comfort blanket for those disorientated by the pace of change.
It would take 34 years and another canvassing of club opinions before that was partially lifted to allow internationals in Croke Park. It was further relaxed only two years ago to allow county grounds be used – an extension all but forced on the GAA by the embarrassment over the Liam Miller soccer testimonial in Páirc Uí Chaoimh in 2018.
Foot dragging
Maybe the reason for all of this foot dragging is that simply, as in any organisation, the apparatchiks are more conservative than the ordinary membership – more invested in the status quo.
It’s frustrating when these significant departures are reviewed because there are very few examples of reform not improving a situation and none of it making things worse even if some changes have been more successful than others.
More to the point, a broader democracy is likelier to approve rules and changes that are reflective of a membership, who live the lives of the GAA.
It’s no coincidence that two of the major reforms mentioned had their origins in conducting plebiscites, which indicated the strong views of the ordinary membership.
This was seen in 2009 in a slightly different way when the prototype disciplinary rules changes that were eventually accepted had a variety of advocates, making the point based on experience that children had to be protected if they were to implement the skills being coached. The vote was well won but not by the required two-thirds majority.
That took another four years.
At the end of this month the GAA come back to the table for a most difficult congress. Its restrictive format means that most major considerations are being kicked down the road until a proper conference can take place.
By now we’ve nearly all experienced remote meetings and as a deliberative process they aren’t great – difficulties of engagement even in round-table situations never mind in those meetings usually held in convention halls.
Even so, the desire has finally arisen to confront the blight of cynical play in hurling. It has taken its time. It always does.
smoran@irishtimes.com
