GAELIC GAMES NEWS:THE GAA proposes to establish a standing committee to advise on playing rule changes on a continual basis.

Last weekend’s Central Council meeting approved the idea in the motion for next year’s annual congress, which seeks to allow such rule changes be brought to all congresses and not just on a five-yearly rotation as currently provided for in the official guide.

According to the motion, the standing committee will be appointed “with responsibility for monitoring, on an ongoing basis, the implementation/interpretation of the playing rules and with a brief to bring proposals to the October árd chomhairle meeting each year on necessary amendments for deliberation by congress of the following year”.

This concept was one of the recommendations of the GAA’s strategic review committee (SRC), which issued its report nearly nine years ago.

The purpose of such a body, proposed as a sub-committee of Central Council, was “to undertake an ongoing review of technical playing rules, playing rule offences and the appropriate disciplinary penalties and report to Central Council on any modification it deems necessary to achieve more consistent understanding and application of the playing rules or to provide more free flowing games”.

Whereas it will be next April before the fate of the proposed standing committee is known, GAA director of games Pat Daly has welcomed the initiative.

“It’s a very progressive idea. People talk about the importance of majorities on the floor when playing rule changes are discussed,” Daly said, “but this would provide for proposals that would be evidence-based and research driven, which, together with the sort of presentation that was used to make the case for crowd control earlier this year, would ensure a larger degree of buy-in from delegates and the membership at large.

“It will help to ensure some degree of harmony and make sure that proposals are devised in a more coherent way.”

There was, however, a more cautious welcome from the manager of the All-Ireland football champions, Conor Counihan, who was en route to Malaysia with the Vodafone All Stars.

“I think they should take time to reflect on any changes. There are a few things to address, but there has to be a stop to constant changing of the rules,” he said.

“Better consultation with managers, players and referees is needed because they’re the most important people involved.

“I accept that there needs to be flexibility and that five years is too long to have to wait for some changes, but that flexibility should only be used in exceptional circumstances.

“Changes should be clear and brought forward with a consensus approach.

“I know from talking to some referees that they weren’t happy with how the changed hand-pass rule was introduced and that it created difficulty.”

Some of Counihan’s misgivings would be answered were the standing committee, should it be approved by Congress, to mirror the 2002 recommendations.

Then the SRC proposed that its body be comprised of the various chairpersons of the games development committee, the national referees committee, the games administration committee (fore-runner of the central competitions control committee) and the players committee (since superseded by the Gaelic Players Association), together with the games director.

According to Daly, there would be rigorous trialling of any ideas before bringing them forward.

“You can’t research on the basis of discussion, and trials mean that you’re in a much stronger position to bring proposals to congress.”

In common with many of the SRC ideas, the proposed sub-committee on playing rule changes never saw the light of day when the recommendations were debated in October 2002.

That weekend eight years ago saw a more modest proposal than the standing sub-committee – allowing playing rules changes to be discussed every three years – thrown out by special congress.

At that stage the GAA was briefly governed by a motion – unbelievably accepted by the 2000 congress – that prohibited even the discussion of rules changes any more frequently than once every 10 years (it was eventually defused so that rule changes could be proposed in 2005, according to the pre-existing dispensation of once every five years).

There remains a hostility to rule changes, as evidenced by the carnage among last April’s motions to congress, and a conviction that the playing rules are changed all the time.

But there is also a strong belief that the regulation of modern games requires more specialist supervision and an ability to respond more quickly to problems, such as the dangerous but unforeseen foul of using a hurler’s protective headgear to shake his head around like a rattle.