THERE has long been an impression in certain quarters that the GAA is run by a crowd of clod-hopping culchies who scarcely know how to spell their names in English. The sudden appearance of what has become known as "The Clare shout" has given credence

[to that view, the kind of noise which inspired Dean Swift to coin the word "yahoo."

Nothing could, of course, be further from the truth for, when it comes to being clever with the use of words and with manipulating language, the GAA is a past master at such activity and, only recently, this was confirmed by the approach to the prickly matter of Rule 21.

There are very few by now who haven't heard or do not know about this particular rule and what it means. Briefly, it is a rule which forbids membership of the GAA to those who are serving in the British forces and the RUC. There was a time when the rule was a sensible and necessary one to have. That was way back when members of the British forces were very wary of the nationalist leanings of the GAA and many efforts were made to infiltrate and undermine the association in its youth.

For a number of years now, various efforts have been made to have the rule removed. The most cogent argument for its removal is that it now has no relevance. The chances of a sudden influx of British soldiers and RUC men is ludicrous. The problem is that these forces of law and order are not trusted within the rank and file of the GAA in Northern Ireland or the Six Counties (take your pick) and there have been many instances of harassment of GAA members going about their lawful sporting business. Indeed, one young man was shot by a British soldier while on his way to a match.

Recent events in the North may have changed the temperature there somewhat, but it is still doubtful whether there would be a widespread welcome for the removal of the rule - even taking the ceasefires into account.

An attempt to have the matter debated at the last Annual Congress was very quietly laid aside when Congress agreed to give the Central Council the power to call a Special Congress to debate the matter.

This was a very skilful sidestep by Congress. According to the rules, a motion which fails to get significant support in one Congress, cannot appear on the agenda for at least three years. On the face of it this seemed a sensible thing to do as it was likely that a bitter debate would ensue. It was also believed that many of the delegates at the meeting would be convinced by the hard-line and emotional members from the North and that the debate would not do anything to embellish the image of the GAA as a sporting organisation.

What has happened subsequently, however, seems to be that the decision to give the Central Council powers that it previously did not have, was a way to stifle debate completely and that now appears to be the case.

In a recent statement on the matter the GAA's president, Jack Boothman, revealed that a meeting of the Central Council had debated the matter, but that "no progress was reported." At the same time, he said there had been no apparent move from within the counties to put pressure on the Central Council to call its special congress and the likelihood is that no such congress will be called before the next Annual Congress in London in April.

It seems a little odd that Jack Boothman on the one hand says there is no pressure from the counties to debate the matter and, at the same time, tell us that the Central Council has reported "no progress." Surely the point of the decision at the last Congress was to give the Central Council the responsibility for initiating the debate.

As well as that it, is also interesting to note that when the matter was raised at a recent county convention in Longford, the motion was ruled out of order because the matter had been passed on to the Central Council for its attention.

What has now emerged is that in taking these powers, the Central Council has snuffed out all open debate on the matter. It means that any county chairman who wishes, can rule any debate on Rule 21 as out of order, while the Central Council seems to be waiting for pressure to come from the counties to bring about the calling of a special congress. It seems to me to be a catch 22 situation.

There is also a danger that the Central Council is becoming more powerful all the time, while at the same time becoming more secretive. If the Central Council now wished to stifle debate on any matter of controversy, it can take to itself powers which it was never intended to have and then sit on the matter until people get fed up being shunted from Liam to Jack (no pun intended) and so the matter is inevitably left on the long finger.

There was a time when the GAA was very proud of the fact that reporters were allowed to attend all Central Council meetings and by extension, information was passed on to the grass roots of the association up and down the country.

The situation in recent times is that the Central Council meets in camera early on the day of the meeting and that the public meeting open to the press, is held in the afternoon when most matters have already been decided and the decisions taken, thus by-passing the grass roots.

Membership of the Central Council is a jealously guarded honour within the GAA and very seldom impinges on the ordinary member. But there is a tendency for Central Council members to ignore the people who put them there and seldom, if ever, report back to their minor bodies.

As far as Rule 21 is concerned, it is now very doubtful if the matter is to be debated at all. If the Central Council decided that now it alone has the authority to debate the matter, a very interesting clash seems on the cards.

The Dublin County Board, inspired by the Civil Service club, is almost certain to put down a motion on Rule 21 for the Annual Congress in London. If that motion gets on the agenda, and there is no guarantee that it will, a lively debate on whether or not it is in order will surely ensue. What an irony it will be if the GAA has a major family row over the matter in London, of all places.