There has to be an easier way. The comings and goings of the ongoing saga of Rule 42 (plus, if we are to believe the Motions Committee, half of the rest of the rule book) is symptomatic of the difficulties facing the GAA as it tries to grapple with decision making within its creaking structures.

There are questions about the basic policy, questions about procedures and questions about whether the mechanisms to deal with these questions are at all viable in the modern age. At present there are major reviews under way in respect of discipline in the games and effectiveness of the rules.

Getting things done is always problematic. Despite frequent claims to the contrary there is a resistance to change no matter how compelling the cases put forward. Sometimes it happens, most notably in the case of championship reforms, but on fundamental issues such as those addressed by the Strategic Review Committee three years ago, it doesn't.

In this overall context the matter of Rule 42 isn't exceptional. Throughout its history the GAA has been face to face with a number of bans before eventually deleting them. The world didn't collapse as a result and Gaelic games have continued to flourish both as recreational outlets and spectator sports.

The GAA is used to taking flak over its conservatism. In many cases it isn't really affected because the criticism can be ill informed and directed from outside the organisation. Furthermore, grassroot concerns are frequently not those of the public at large.

That's fine up to a point. The public doesn't own the GAA and grants of public money to an organisation that has done so much in community terms don't change that.

But there is a sticking point. One of the defences of the GAA centres on its status as a great, demotic organisation that values input from the ground level up to the top. Congress is a great coming together of delegates representing the roots of the association.

Part of this argument concerns the debating of motions. Anyone sticking their head above the parapet to criticise some aspect of the GAA or advocate an innovation is liable to be told to get a motion backed by their club and bring it through the provincial convention and on to Congress in April.

Notionally that's how it works. But there is little confidence in Congress as a body to deal with important matters and that pessimism has often been expressed at the top.

In the past when Rule 21 (preventing members of the Northern Ireland security forces from joining the GAA) was a frequent cause of contention, there were a couple of attempts made to squash discussion on the subject - mainly because the GAA was afraid of the effects a rancorous debate in public would have on the association's public image.

Even when Rule 21 was dismantled it took two special congresses held in camera before the desired effect was achieved.

When the Roscommon motion in 2001 (to devolve to Central Council responsibility for the use of Croke Park) was nearly successful, even after the Government did its best to influence the debate by chucking a wad of cash on the table the night before the debate, it took the top table quite by surprise. And the same mistake wasn't repeated.

A year later arose the current notion that renting out Croke Park to rugby and soccer internationals somehow interfered with the ability, inter alia, to "promote and control the national games of hurling, Gaelic football, handball and rounders and such other games as may be sanctioned and approved by annual congress," as stipulated in Rule 3.

At the 2002 Congress, a Clare motion identical to Roscommon's was declared out of order by then president Seán McCague although he allowed it to go ahead in the interests of debate. In 2003 the motions were ruled out of order, as they were last year and at first time of asking this year too.

With debate so easily stifled or postponed the importance of Congress as a decision-making body has become greatly qualified. Major innovations are generally sold around the counties in advance rendering the actual input of a Congress debate merely a formality.

Former Leinster chair Nicky Brennan has plenty of experience when addressing the subject. He was a member of both the GAA's Congress review sub-committee, which reported in 1997 and the strategic review committee (SRC), whose report he helped present to the October 2002 special congress.

"It's democracy in action, but whether it's the best way forward is open to question," he said when considering what Congress has become.

The SRC proposals suggested that the structure and content of congress should operate on a three-year cycle, dealing with different topics each year and becoming more of a review body with Central Council taking over a lot of the executive decision-making.

There has also been a new development in the midst of the Rule 42 controversy and that is the capacity of the current structures to defy a sitting president.

Regardless of yesterday's decision there is an obvious tension between the extensive powers enjoyed by the president once Congress is under way and his comparative impotence when it comes to drawing up an agenda.

It's unlikely that the issue of opening up Croke Park will be resolved this year no matter what appears on the Congress clár. But maybe from the contention of the past 12 months, the need for a more workable decision-making structure can emerge. And that would also be something worth debating.