Messages

OTB, Abusive language is a four week suspension, so you can't say that 12 weeks is too short for anything more than verbals.

Now that they have redecided Galvin's ban, there's actually a bit of sense coming out of the Kerry lads. The personal abuse and character asassaination that referees get on this Board, outside the heat of a match, doesn't even draw a comment and people want a one-year ban for someone who, while no angel, has had a season of inter county football wiped out (no ye won't get to the final).

Personally I'd be for six months but they are perfectly entitled to impose 3 months if that was their verdict after a proper hearing.

People shouldn't take the whole thing so personally. I doubt Paddy Russell is crying into his soup.

I'm not in the pansy camp but the Aussies are no example to us. Softening opponents up is part and parcel of their game. We saw it in the international rules. You'll see it every week in their domestic games.

Thanks Hardy, and I agree with your point too about penalty increases (mutual appreciation society). I spoke to someone about the idea of increasing penalties and there's nothing really wrong with it where it's a fixed tariff (like a speeding fine). It gets a bit trickier when you're dealing with minimum sentences because if, say, the CCC propose 3 months for a strightforward striking offence (1 month minimum), the player should not be punished for looking for a reduction. Maybe if the player is given a choice to defend his case on the basis of EITHER his innocence OR harshness of suspension, the penalty increase might only apply where somebody says he's innocent and loses, as opposed to someone who thinks that the penalty is too harsh. I don't know. It could get messy. The more you think about these things the more complicated it gets. That's why I'm so wary about people who think there's an easy fix. The devil is in the detail.

I asked about challenging the DRA. You can challenge a DRA decision in the High Court under the arbitration act if the arbitrators are guilty of misconduct. Apparently that's a very serious accusation, like saying they had drink taken or something like that (you'd think they'd need it!). You can also have the decision sent back to teh arbitrators if there is a serious "error of law". My informant said that since DRA decisions are as detailed as High Court decisions, a judge would most likely not interfere with a DRA decision on the grounds that they have specialist knowledge in this area of law.   

Who's idea was it to send the penalty over the bar? Did the SG have any idea?

Muppet, I take your point about the layers in the system, and there's one layer that is a waste (the Central Appeals Committee), but you need to look at (a) the legal requirements of the system and (b) the "decisions" in each case.

Legal requirements

1. Somebody has to have an opportunity to defend themselves. If the referee gets it wrong, as he can, there has to be a way to release the player from the suspension. The opportunity must be fair so they need notice etc.

2. You need an independent legal assessment body. That's why they brought in the DRA. Without the DRA, the Courts are entitled to get involved.

Decisions

1. The Referee. The referee does not get involved in deciding what suspension somebody gets. He decides a matter of fact and that's the end of his involvement. You therefore need another decision. You also need another decision to cater for things the Ref doesn't see.

2. The CCC "decision". Treating this as a decision is the mistake everybody makes. Whenever anyone in any sports organisation is accused of an offence, they are entitled to defend themselves (legal requirement). They must get notice of the accusation (legal requirement). The so called "decision" of the CCC is just a little addition to the required notice saying "you can acept penalty X and this'll all be over". In other words, it allows the player to plead guilty. When you see it in that light it does not add a layer but in 99% of cases takes a layer away.

3. The CHC decision. This is the most important decision in the whole system. If the player disputes the accusation, which he is entitled to do, he can do so here. He bring in video evidence or whatever. The ref's report is practically impossible to beat. You need "video evidence" or other "compelling evidence". There is a very useful refernce book published by Croke park which explains all this by the way. Anyway, I never saw anyone beat the ref's report until Tomas O Se.

4. The CAC decision. This is a rubber stamping exercise because they can't reverse the CHC unless there is some breach of procedures. It's completely unnecessary because it's doing the exact same job as the DRA.

5. DRA. This is a legal requirement if you want to keep the courts out. I was at a seminar about this and was told that if you suspend or expel somebody for going to court you'll br crucified by the courts.  I suppose you could challenge teh DRA by looking for judicial review (I'll ask someone about that and post again) but we can deal with that hurdle when we come to it.

On increasing suspensions for appealing, I think you have to be careful here. This also came up at the seminar and the point was made that you can't interfere with someone's right to prove their case by scare tactics. You could be clever and do it the other way round, a discount for accepting the proposed penalty...

Better go to bed now. Great day in Semple!

Tyrone looked like they were but they were practising their diving....

Was just speaking to a solicitor there. You don't have to lodge a bond in the High Court before you bring a case unless your from outside the EC or you're a company with no money. Reckons that lawyers acting for players do it "no foal no fee". The loser pays the costs for both sides in most cases but if a player loses, he never ends up actually paying  as he won't have the money.

I heard 17k was the costs of one side (so the total costs would have been 34k) in a case last year. DRA act for free but the expenses are 1k.

Maybe it is. They could surely afford to staff the Central Committees with professionals. In fact they could probably get lawyers in to do it for free, like the DRA. Why wait til the end of the process. If the CHC had professionals and they'd given him a reasonable suspension he wouldn't have ended up in the DRA at all.

I don't normally contribute to these boards but there's a lot of claptrap knocking about on his thread that I can't let go. I'm involved in medium size club and I have seen the system in operation at all levels (except DRA). The system isn't perfect but there's no crisis. Changing the rules again is plain daft.

As an administrator I've put alot of work into learning the new system since last year, and it's fine in 99% of cases. If everybody put a bit of effort into reading the rules they'd find the same, and they wouldn't want to have to learn yet another system next year or the year afterwwards. The problem cases are nothing to do with the system. It's the stupid decisions that are causing problems. Giving Paul Galvin a 6 months proposed penalty was totally disproportionate by the CCC and then the CHC go and make the exact same mistake. Making the referee change his report to upgrade Colin Moran's yellow card was stupid and the CHC again made the exact same mistake as the CCC. The system gave them two chances to get it right and they got it wrong both times. No wonder they end up appealing. You can't legislate for stupidity, so more rules are a total waste of time. The only change that will sort out the so called crisis is hiring professional disciplinary committees but who's going to pay for that?