Seán Moran/Gaelic Games: Yesterday's release of the motions list for next month's congress has lots to say about the ongoing battle against indiscipline.

The abandonment of the yellow card sanctions currently being trialled in the National Leagues won't be widely lamented and the reasons for that - in the main depressingly high tolerance for foul play - are dispiriting but the days of recidivist fouling are coming to an end; it's just a matter of how quickly.

It's illustrative of the power of the mindset that must be overcome that so many complaints have been levelled at the yellow-card sendings off rather than at the fouling that has brought them about. So it's no surprise that the climate of opinion wasn't going to support the adoption of the proposal.

Maybe it's a little surprising that the idea hasn't even been put to congress, particularly given the assurances that everyone would get to have their say on the subject when it was debated.

But the current dispensation was never really intended - from the moment it replaced the hastily discarded sinbin - to be anything more than a diagnostic of how serious the issue of foul play had become.

That it has done, albeit not to general acclaim. The real remedies are, however, on the way. Changing the playing rules was probably not the best place to start when so much else is wrong with the administration of discipline.

This area can be divided into three: rules, their enforcement, and the consequences of breaking them.

Although the rules are the starting point there is a strong argument that in this matter reform is best coming from the top down.

The proposed rules include the new offences being trialled during the current season, such as pulling and dragging off the ball, body checking and quite importantly, behaviour towards referees.

Should the motion be accepted at congress, it will be a new offence to "confront, harass or remonstrate with a match official". Failure to observe this would be punished by a yellow card. The case has long been made that for misbehaviour to be dealt with adequately on the field, respect for the match officials has to improve.

Maybe modern technology militates against the word of referees being unchallenged in that decisions taken on the spot can be reviewed endlessly on video. But with an alarming decline in the recruitment of referees, something has to be done to defend them against being abused on the field and reached for as the handiest scapegoats once a match is over.

Greater confidence among match officials would lead to less hesitancy and more consistent decision-making. That has to be addressed and it would be up to referees if the above proposal were accepted, to enforce it and begin the process of eliminating ostentatious dissent.

Within the same motion 10, there is a long overdue recognition that yellow cards must mean something, even if it's not as drastic as sending off. Under the current rulebook it is possible to pick up a yellow card in every match all year and suffer no punishment.

The idea of penalising cumulative indiscipline is obvious and requires competition-specific match bans to be imposed.

This is something that in the past has been resisted, but with the growing number of matches at intercounty level, now makes more sense than ever.

Enforcement at committee level has been a crisis over the past couple of years. There were signs that the previous Games Administration Committee were getting to grips with the situation by their policy of using video evidence where possible to confront wrongdoers and by handing down consistent punishments.

There were signs that the message was starting to penetrate, but then the term of office ended. And in retrospect it proved a freak occurrence. The current GAC has been hopeless at getting to the root of foul play and punishing it. Bizarrely, given its importance, the GAC has been the one committee that the president doesn't get to select.

The chair is appointed, but has no input into the composition of the rest of the committee, which is elected - hardly a guarantee of firm and unbending enforcement. So some committees are good and others aren't.

That is on the verge of change. Congress will discuss the splitting up of the GAC into two bodies, one with responsibility for fixtures and the other in charge of discipline.

The latter body will be made up of appointed individuals independent of other committees and units.

There's reason to be optimistic that this will enable disciplinary hearings to be conducted on a rigorous and consistent basis.

Also on the clár are proposals from the interim report of the Rulebook Task Force. This has had the intricate task of decommissioning what was becoming a legal minefield. Under the old system, the GAC had the task of formulating charges, prosecuting them and adjudicating on the issue.

Care was taken not to have the same people do all of this but the temptation to litigate was increasingly yielded to and the courts happy enough to fling around interlocutory injunctions.

Any lawyers assessing this situation have been certain of two things: one, such litigation must be opposed and two, the rules need tightening and streamlining so that opportunistic injunction hunting can be rendered pointlessly unproductive.

The details may look dry and uninteresting, but within the 36 pages of motions to be considered next month is the basis of a new departure in the battle against indiscipline on the playing fields.

How appropriate that Croke Park will get to host a congress that could be a turning point in that campaign.