The pace of political events here has now left the GAA with a tortuous circle to square. How can it meet the demands that are being made of it in terms of both policing and Rule 21 while at the same time retain any credibility when it comes to presenting itself as a genuinely non-political organisation which is above the rigours of day-to-day party activity?

How can it satisfy the demands of a large contingent of its Ulster members while also not being seen to be an obstructive presence to change and improvement in the quality of life here? Small wonder that the official pronouncements emerging from Croke Park are becoming more careworn by the day.

Having said that, those same statements are always worthy of some close scrutiny and never more so than last week. Danny Lynch, the association's spokesman and someone who could quite reasonably have thought that his job would never have involved anything more complex than explaining why everyone can't get an All-Ireland final ticket, was responding the developments in relation to the establishment of the new Police Board here.

There was nothing new in that because policing has been the fly in the ointment of the Good Friday Agreement for over three years now. But the stakes were raised considerably by the decision of the SDLP to come on board.

On the nationalists side and in terms of the large bulk of the GAA's natural constituency that left only Sinn FΘin on the outside looking in. Media and public interest therefore focused on the stance to be adopted by the GAA, now regarded increasingly in the post-Agreement world as one of the barometers of nationalist opinion.

Danny Lynch first of all expressed dissatisfaction that a copy of the Plan for Policing had not been forwarded in advance to the GAA and then went on to state the association's official position. "We're two months behind everyone else and in the knowledge that we have been made central to the whole policing issue, I think we are entitled to be circularised," he said.

"This can't be an overnight decision given the consulting process we're committed to." Forget for a few seconds the origin of that statement and read over that excerpt again with particular reference to the language used. The reality is you couldn't put a cigarette paper between it and any of the countless hundreds of pronouncements on the policing issue that have been made here over the past number of months by all of the political parties, including Sinn FΘin and the SDLP. Whether it likes it or not the GAA is now placed four-square at the centre of political debate here.

And what's more, the powers-that-be within the association seem to have come to a realisation of that. Why else would Danny Lynch refer to the way the GAA has been "made central" to the issue of policing despite the fact that it was in no way involved in any of the political discussions that either preceded or succeeded the Agreement in 1998?

The answer is to be found in the substance of the Patten Report into the future of policing here. While other interested parties including the Irish and British governments may have tip-toed around the issue in the past, Patten was under no illusions when it came to the role the GAA had to play in the resolution of the policing problem.

Much attention was focused on the call for the removal of Rule 21 and debate has tended to centre around that one administrative issue. But buried deep in the Patten recommendations is a suggested measure which could have potential much more wide-ranging implications. Patten envisaged that "all community leaders including sports authorities should take all steps to remove discouragements to members of their communities applying to join the police and make it a priority to encourage them to apply."

The ramifications of that are considerable and in theory make demands of the GAA that go far beyond the mere deletion of what has become an irrelevant rule from its official rule book. The role envisaged for the GAA is much more pro-active and seems predicated totally on the existence of a credible police force which it can both endorse and then recommend to its members. How far is it supposed to go? A debate has already started among teachers as to whether recruiting officers for the new police force should be invited into their schools. It does not require much stretching of the imagination to see the GAA being forced into considering whether the same officers are welcome in its clubrooms. There are some momentous decisions to be made.

None of that is made any easier by the environment in which all of this is being played out. The level and severity of attacks on GAA property have both increased markedly in recent weeks, particularly in the south Derry area. A statement from a group styling itself the South Londonderry Volunteers warning that devices had been left in GAA grounds in an area running from Antrim, south Derry and into Tyrone does not create a situation in which calm and detached debate is always possible.

The reality is that a special Congress could be held in the Burlington Hotel tomorrow morning at which Rule 21 was swept away with the unanimous approval of every county and it would make absolutely no difference either to nationalist attitudes towards the police service or to loyalist attitudes towards the GAA. The importance of Rule 21 is now more apparent than real. There are much bigger political fish to fry.

If Rule 21 is removed over the next few months it would buy the GAA some time. But it would also only paper over the cracks of the deeper issues. Can the GAA go it alone on policing without some movement from Sinn FΘin? The new policing plan is evidently acceptable to the SDLP, which would count a large contingent of GAA members among its supporters.

What happens if significant numbers of young men and women from that grouping apply to join the new police service? Will they do so with the approval, tacit or otherwise of the GAA? And if that approval is not forthcoming will they decide that they cannot continue as GAA members? Answers on a postcard to Croke Park.

All contributions gratefully received by D Lynch and S McCague.