Deliberate striking with a hurley deplored

CLARECASTLE has called for “the county  board to establish a committee to review the enforcement of the rules in relation to the Category 111 infraction – striking with hurley, either with force or causing injury. The club wants this to be undertaken as defined in Rule 7.2(b) of An Treoraí Oifigiúil 2010 part 1.
“The remit of this committee should establish clear guidelines to be applied by Coiste Cheannais na gComotaisi (CCC) in determining when to invoke the gravity provision on suspensions allowed for in Rule 7.5 (b) highlighting, in particular, the consideration that should be afforded to any comments in the referee’s report relating to the seriousness/gravity of the particular offence on how to determine, in the case that the gravity provision is invoked, an appropriate suspension more severe that the minimum and up to and including the maximum allowed for in 7.5 (b)”, led to quite a lively discussion.
Proposing the motion, John Callinan said, “We all know our games are physical contact sports and that’s one of the great attractions. To engage in physical sport requires an acceptance of accidental injury and it also requires that players respect each other. Gaelic football and rugby are extremely physical games. Hurling is also a physical sport. I would want to give everybody an opportunity to play the game. In no other sport is the need to respect each other greater than in hurling because each player has, effectively, a weapon. There is an ongoing debate in the GAA about discipline, playing rules, suspension periods, different categories of offences and so on. This debate will continue and so it should,” he said.
He added that the Clarecastle club “has a concern about the implementation of the rules, particularly as they relate to suspensions. We can have no more than a concern. We are not criticising the disciplinary committee in any way. We are merely asking that a review committee be put in place with regard to the enforcement of the rules that exist particularly in relation to category 111 infractions and arising from that review, clear guidelines could be established. Our particular concern is the offence of striking with hurley either with force or causing injury. The minimum suspension is eight weeks.”
Callinan went on to refer delegates to the gravity clause, which says, “where a minimum suspension is prescribed in relation to an infraction, the committee in charge may impose a longer term of suspension.” He then referred delegates to the section in the convention booklet, which gave details of disciplinary decisions from 2011. “There are 21 suspensions for striking with hurley using minimum force. All received the minimum four weeks. There are five suspensions under rule 7.2 (b) and all five players received the minimum suspension of eight weeks including one from my own club.
“We are not saying that the committee has acted in an unfair, impartial or unjust way. Having regard to the gravity provision in rule 7.5 (b), it is strange that each of the five situations under rule 7.2(b) category 111 and all 21 rule 7.2(b) category 1 infractions merited the exact same suspension, in each particular case, the minimum. Our club has seen the damage a blow to the head can do. There are plenty of people in this room, myself included, and who received blows, accidental. We have strict rules now with regard to the wearing of headgear. Is the wearing of a helmet, in some perverse way, encouraging players to either strike deliberately of wrecklessly?  Helmets are not worn for this reason. While there have been some injuries, thankfully, there have been no fatal injuries that I am aware of. We must do everything to prevent this happening. Players, referees, mentors and the county board through its committees must do everything they can. Does one size fit all? The rules as drafted provide for the minimum suspension and we also have the gravity provision. Players who are injured feel let down by the system when they see their aggressor, because of the vagaries of the suspension system, missing, maybe, only one match. It is a safety matter and this motion should be considered carefully,” Callinan said.
The Clarecastle motion was seconded by PJ Fitzpatrick from Sixmilebridge.
Both board chairman Michael O’Neill and secretary Pat Fitzgerald said the motion should be referred to congress but proposer Callinan didn’t agree. “We are not asking for a rule change. The rule is fine. We are asking for a committee to be set up to review how its enforced,” he said.
“It’s a very difficult one,” said secretary, Fitzgerald. “Without some kind of an indication from a referee, the rule dictates. Maybe the place to tackle this is at a referees’ meeting.”
Replying, Callinan said, “This committee cannot give less than  four weeks for one offence and less than eight for the other but the rule does not prevent the committee from giving more”.
O’Neill replied, “You have come up with nothing that will change the rule as it stands. If you did, I would be totally supportive of this proposal. It deserves to go to congress.”
Supporting the motion, PJ Fitzpatrick said, “The minimum suspension has automatically become the maximum. Whether we like it or not, we have a duty to our games. The first duty of the referee is to protect our players and then the disciplinary committee to adjudicate on punishments so that a clear message will be sent out that serious deliberate foul play will not be tolerated. It can’t be tolerated. When somebody goes above and beyond on the field of play, we have a duty to deal with it and if that needs a committee to have a look at it, then it should happen. We know in our hearts and soul that things occurred this year. There is no justice when you see a player who receives a deliberate blow of a hurley, who is out of the game twice as long as the suspension issued to the person who administered it. We know we have a problem. There has been slippage and it’s our duty to deal with it.”
“It should be put to the convention,” said Noel Walsh. It may do a lot of good.
According to referee administrator, Ger Hoey, “Referees are told to report per the rule book. The less you write, the greater impact the report will make whereas the more you write, the more holes are poked in it,” he said.
Referee’s chairman Ger Lyons said he had no doubt that the referee in question didn’t underestimate the incident in question to which John Callinan replied that he wasn’t speaking about any one incident.
Corofin’s Ambrose Heagney, a prominent hurling referee, told the meeting, “If I came across a serious deliberate blow, I would highlight it”.
The motion was carried and chairman O’Neill said he would set up a three-person committee.