Clash - not as in 'Clash of the Ash' or 'appetising weekend clash' but as in Joe Strummer - is this week's starting point. I Fought the Law is an appropriate sound track for many of the woes besetting the GAA's disciplinary system. Pedants can point out (indeed one is about to) that the song was actually written by Sonny Curtis of the (post-Buddy Holly) Crickets, but let the intro run free.

GAA President Nickey Brennan can surely empathise with the opening lyrics. Breaking rocks in the hot sun

I fought the law and the . . .

law won

At times it must appear to him that breaking rocks would in fact be a more constructive investment of effort - and better fun - than trying to impose discipline.

The announcement of Saturday's extraordinary Central Council meeting, to consider the imposition of discipline within the association, is a sign that the GAA has finally lost patience with the widespread refusal to subjugate sectional interests to the greater good of respecting rules both in spirit and in letter.

It would also be useful to investigate Gerald McCarthy's complaints about how his players ended up en route to Portlaoise when they heard that their appeals hearing had been called off because representatives of the Hearings Committee (whose role was to defend the suspensions) couldn't attend.

It seems beyond belief that the Central Appeals Committee could have directed players to attend a meeting that hadn't yet been confirmed with all the other relevant parties.

Much of the association's new and already beleaguered disciplinary processes have evolved from a fear of the law and more damagingly it appears that many decisions are being reached on the basis of second guessing what the law might say about disciplinary action.

Leading officials have privately indicated that they were afraid that appropriate punishment mightn't stand up when filtered through the rigours of the legal process imported into the association, namely the Disputes Resolution Authority arbitration tribunal.

There is also a growing view within the organisation that the role of the DRA needs assessment.

This has nothing to do with the merits of the authority, which has dealt with a far larger workload than originally anticipated, and done so on a voluntary basis and at frequent inconvenience to its members when matters have to be expedited.

The DRA was intended to prevent members and units from challenging the GAA in the courts.

In that task it has been thoroughly successful - cases against the association from within have simply stopped. But the problem is that the tribunal is now treated as just another rung on the appeals ladder.

Disciplinary decisions in particular are challenged on grounds few would dare bring before the High Court in search of an injunction and, as a result, the DRA hears cases that would never go to law.

Consequently, you end up with sagas like the still-ongoing current Cork-Clare controversy in which, despite apparently incontrovertible evidence, every last centimetre of the system is explored on the off-chance it offers an escape hatch. The GAA director general, Liam Mulvihill, took up this point in his annual report last year.

"The most disappointing aspect to discipline," he wrote, "is the extent to which clubs and counties go to defend the wrongdoers and a huge amount of time is wasted on futile hearings, rehearings and appeals caused by such behaviour.

"Many cases have also been taken to the Disputes Resolution Authority - including a few arising from intercounty games - and it means that we need to consider if there are too many layers of hearings for such cases and if the current appeals bodies are appropriate or effective in terms of serving the association. Is there any point in having cases dealt with by the Central Appeals Committee since they all have a right to go to the DRA as well?"

Elaborating on that point at the time, he accepted he was advocating the abolition of the CAC because the DRA was getting so many referrals.

Mulvihill returned to the same subject in this year's report, writing: "The DRA was set up to deal essentially with complicated cases where a certain party felt they hadn't been well served by the system.

"Unfortunately, instead of being seen as a last resort, the DRA now seems to be regarded as a forum to be headed for as quickly as possible."

This trend also means legal precepts are now being imported into the association, often in attempts to overthrow run-of-the-mill suspensions.

Even in everyday consideration of such matters there are garbled references to the law, such as "trial by media", despite the fact this is generally only of relevance to the prejudicing of jury trials in criminal prosecutions.

Only the other night on RTÉ's Sunday Game, the former Cork manager Dónal O'Grady, commenting on the situation, also drew parallels with the criminal-justice system, as opposed to what the Official Guide is - a voluntary code of conduct for members of a sports organisation.

"I think that maybe the players should have come out immediately and apologised," he said, "both Clare and Cork, and it might have solved a lot of problems for them.

"But when you come out and apologise then maybe are you weakening your case when it goes to CCCC or CHC level. That's the problem the players are in - it's like going through any court case; if you're sorry for what you did, you're almost admitting guilt."

On RTÉ Radio One's Drivetime Sport on Monday the sports law expert Jack Anderson, also a member of the DRA, spoke about the need to get players and managers to "buy into" the disciplinary system. Anderson was correct, but fellow panellist and former Dublin player and manager Tom Carr, although he agreed, was sceptical.

I received from a friend a text message that was blunter: "Players and managers will buy into nothing."

And that, more or less, is the starting point for Central Council on Saturday.