DIRECTOR GENERAL PARAIC Duffy has branded the criticism of GAA disciplinary structures following the Diarmuid Connolly appeal as ”lazy headline-seeking commentary.”
Dublin star Connolly sensationally saw his suspension lifted by the Disputes Resolution Authority — hours before he lined out in the All-Ireland semi-final replay against Mayo.
Critics rubbished the decision, handed down at 2.30am on the morning of the game, as “a joke” while others described the appeal system as “flawed” and “a disgrace.”
“For my part I do not believe that there is any fundamental weakness in our disciplinary structures,” Duffy responded in his annual report.
I may have been surprised by the decisions announced in the specific cases mentioned, just as I have been often surprised, as we all have been by decisions made by disciplinary bodies outside of the GAA and even by the courts.
“But we are surprised in these cases only because we are privy to the debate or to considerations taken into account in reaching a decision. And sometimes, too, decision-makers, as fallible human beings, will just get it wrong.”
The DRA’s decision was based on a “lack of fair procedure” afforded to Connolly earlier in the process following his sending off for striking Lee Keegan in the drawn game.
His case was one of only three to be appealed to the DRA by an inter-county player since 2011, Duffy explained, and the only one to be overturned.
“In the past five years (2011-2015), the CCCC has proposed 1,132 penalties arising from inter-county games. Arising from this, 146 players have sought hearings in order to challenge proposed penalties. In 50 instances the proposed penalty has been overturned. Three cases have gone all the way to the DRA. In only one of those cases over the past five years – that of Diarmuid Connolly in 2015 – has the penalty been overturned.
From the outcry that greeted the decision in the Diarmuid Connolly case, one might conclude that players are routinely going to the DRA to have penalties lifted. The facts tell us otherwise.
“Commentators were entitled to question the DRA decision in respect of Diarmuid Connolly to have penalties, although one wonders if the outcry would have been as great if the players was someone other than Diarmuid Connolly but it was otherwise lazy headline-seeking commentary to use this to suggest that our disciplinary structures are not fit for purpose.”
