When GAA president Seán Kelly first opened up the idea of separating the functions of the current Games Administration Committee (GAC) even he probably didn't realise that in the process he'd also divert that unwanted pathway to the courts.
But yesterday's reports from the GAC and rule book task forces, both of which were set up by Kelly, appear to signal the end of the often embarrassing situation of players ending up in court to fight for their right to play.
The case last year involving Westmeath footballer Rory O'Connell and his successful quest to have a three-month ban overturned in the courts looks now to be consigned to history.
Should those task force proposals be approved at next month's Congress then the new disciplinary committees would be in operation on an interim basis for this summer's championship, and then formally from 2006.
"I think these task forces have done a tremendous job," Kelly said yesterday. "We're looking at a whole new approach to dealing with disciplinary matters in terms of appeals and arbitration, while also greatly reducing anyone's need to go to the courts.
"The division of GAC was something we badly needed, because we've seen a huge increase in the workload of the GAC in the last number of years, especially with so many extra games across the board. It had become next to impossible for the committee to deal with all those matters.
"And I always felt that discipline and fixtures were never related. A person could be very au fait and interested in fixtures, but it mightn't be the same when it came to discipline."
The task forces this week presented their reports to Ulster and Leinster, and go to Connacht and Munster next week, to ensure a full and proper airing ahead of Congress. The general feeling is that the changes are far from before their time and approval appears to be a formality.
For Paraic Duffy, who chaired the GAC task force, the decision to separate fixtures from discipline should create a model of practicality. "We didn't rush into this," he said, "even the proposal to break it into two. In fact we looked at every angle, but in the end we came to the unanimous decision that yes, we should divide it between fixtures and discipline.
"The key issue was workload. I can certainly say from my own experience that there were situations where you'd be rushed into a decision, simply because you ran out of time."
Kelly approved of the task force's proposal that the new committee members be appointed rather than elected. "I think when people are elected as opposed to appointed you get an entirely different set of people," he said. "Some people who would make excellent members wouldn't go forward for election."
The president was equally welcoming of the decision to hand over all appeals and arbitrations to an independent body. "I always felt that appeals to Management Committee and Central Council can lead to canvassing," he admitted, "and to situations where there can be some influence on the outcome."
Frank Murphy, who chaired the rule book task force, pointed out that with a review of the disciplinary rules still under way, there should be an extension of time to present disciplinary matters related to playing rules, and as a result all such motions set to go before Congress should be referred to rule book committee.
In the meantime, though, he was also confident the new arbitration system would end the situation of players going to the courts, not only because the GAA system would be mandatory, but also far less expensive.
"It is a very complex document," admitted Murphy, "and embodies so many principles, it is important that all the principles are embodied in that legislation. But if we didn't meet all of the Irish Arbitration Act then it could be struck down on application to court.
"And we're effectively saying that members have a contract with the association (GAA) to operate in accordance with the procedures outlined in the rules. And even if they went to court, they would rule that the case would have to go to arbitration. That's our legal advice on the matter."
