Seán Moran On Gaelic Games: Yikes! As they used say in the comics on encountering an unpleasant surprise.

The simmering imbroglio over the very first decision of the GAA's disputes resolution authority (DRA) wouldn't have been what everyone had in mind when the association's new discipline and arbitration system was unveiled to widespread approval little over a month ago.

The DRA is at the apex of this new system, its admirable purpose to provide an independent tribunal in order to head off the popular impulse to seek remedy in the courts.

Naturally this wouldn't prevent people going to law, because constitutionally it couldn't, but it would make it harder for the courts to hand out interlocutory injunctions like fliers at a trade fair.

In other words, once the GAA could prove it operated an independent system of arbitration, it would reduce the room to claim that you weren't getting fair play.

So far so good. But to rewind just a little farther, why was this initiative so important? Well, for obvious reasons of tidying up the association's affairs, but more specifically to tackle the increasingly litigious nature of the membership.

As director general Liam Mulvihill said in his annual report to this year's congress: "We have to accept that more and more of our members (players and non-players) are going to go outside the association when and where they perceive that there is an injustice, or where they feel there is an opportunity of being successful in the short-term.

"For this reason the rule book task force is examining pretty radical changes to our whole disciplinary system, which will involve a new tribunal and arbitration procedure and more use of experts to deal with disciplinary cases and a separate appeal process at central level."

Why should this be? Is there another sports organisation in the world that has to put up with such regular attempts to defy its authority? Nearly every year the GAA's elite competitions feature incidents in matches that trigger immediate speculation about the possibility of overturning the result on the field in committee rooms or even in court.

One of the reasons is the tendency to be concerned exclusively with the interests of your own team, club or county. This goes beyond the usual competitive tunnel vision common to all competitive sport and frequently manifests itself as an inability to accept the middle ground whether that concerns criticism, the imposition of discipline, enforcement of rules or acceptance of their spirit.

Another reason is that the GAA's decisions and procedures have left the association open to challenge. The rules have seldom been struck down in court, but equally they have rarely been put to the test of full hearings given that the favoured method of attack has been the interlocutory injunction designed to get a player through one or two big matches. Once that has been achieved no one bothers with the full hearing.

An informal briefing of leading GAA officials on the subject of administrative law last year opened their eyes to a substantial acreage of landmines should the association's procedures remain as ramshackle. This reinforced what was already a strong belief that change was needed, and that saw expression in last month's new central bodies for discipline, appeals and arbitration.

Of course another reason for the constant flirting with civil law is that observance of rules remains breathtakingly inept at times. Only at the weekend Tipperary allowed 16 men on the field against Limerick. It was for a matter of seconds, but that it happened at all left the county open to a potentially disastrous objection.

Limerick had the good grace to pass on the nuclear option, but they might well have had a good case.

Tipp maybe had earned the break, given that by rule they had won the Munster football title three years ago after Cork had lost count of their replacements.

Munster Council cooked up a cunning plan to exculpate Cork, although the then Games Administration Committee disowned the interpretation shortly afterwards.

Tipperary, embarrassed by a landslide defeat in the replayed Munster final, didn't pursue the matter.

A lot of sticky situations have been rescued by the ready supply of ambiguities, but that's plainly not sustainable in an age when teams will soon have senior counsel on the sideline together with dieticians, statisticians and sports psychologists.

The recent first case to be heard by the DRA is both interesting and instructive. Its 21-page determination on the eligibility of Kilmacud's Mark Vaughan to play in last Friday's Dublin championship match was closely argued and comprehensive. The decision to allow the player line out is the subject of an objection from St Brigid's, but that will be on procedural grounds.

In terms of the actual substance of the tribunal's decision, it clarifies a couple of important matters.

By asserting the primacy of the rulebook, it focuses attention on the provisions of the Official Guide; in other words the GAA's rules must say what they mean.

If the county championships are to be regarded as a continuation of the previous season's provincial club competitions, the rules should state that.

The tribunal declined to accept representations that Central Council had ruled on the matter because of the lack of permissible evidence.

The lifting of Vaughan's suspension in respect of the Dublin championship caused a certain amount of ill-feeling in official circles, resentment that an arbitration body is re-writing the rules. But in fairness to the DRA, its function is to apply the rules of the GAA and also the law of the land as a court would - hence the legal input.

There's no point in handing down decisions that would be readily challengeable in the courts, which could happen regardless of undertakings not to pursue remedies at law.

Finally, last week's decision also addresses the one major concern about the DRA's first outing: that it was a pretty run-of-the-mill case to arrive on the tribunal's desk and that the GAA didn't intend the body to become merely another layer of the appeal process.

But the point 17 of the decision appears to rule out the use of the tribunal for that sort of purpose. It further states that, in the absence of a facility to appeal interpretations, the DRA was the appropriate forum.

If any of those who agreed to serve on the tribunal panel felt that the task was going to be straightforward, they'll have been disabused by the response to the authority's first decision.

Fortunately, on the evidence of its first outing, the DRA is well up to the job.