Gaelic Games
Substitute dispute to go to Central Council
Leinster football controversy
Seán Moran reports
Offaly and Kildare will have to wait until the weekend at least before they know whether they will have to replay their provincial championship quarter-final. At a meeting last night in Portlaoise, the Leinster Council’s Games Administration Committee decided to refer the rule governing substitutions during a match to Saturday’s meeting of the GAA’s Central Council.
Controversy concerning the match, won by Offaly, arose when it emerged that the winners may have made six substitutions during the match, one more than permitted. As a result, the provincial council invited the counties to discuss the matter.
Leinster secretary Michael Delaney said after last night’s meeting that there had been sufficient ambiguity to merit the referral.
“We heard strong arguments on either side and we decided that the best course of action was to get a definitive interpretation. The DRA (Disputes Resolution Authority) has made it clear that only Central Council can hand down such interpretations, so we are asking for a ruling on Rule 2.4 of the Rules of Specification (this deals with the number of substitutions and blood replacements allowed to any team during a match). There’s a meeting this weekend.
“We felt we had to do this for clarity in case Kildare decided to lodge an objection to the result, which could be appealed up to Central Council and even to the DRA. They didn’t say that was their intention, but they have until Wednesday to decide.”
The situation arose during Sunday’s Leinster championship match between Offaly and Kildare. In the first half, Offaly’s Pascal Kellaghan was temporarily replaced by James Coughlan under the blood rule.
Any of the team panel of 30 players may be used for this type of substitution, which does not count as one of the team’s permitted five changes – providing that the recovered player returns to the field in exchange for the player who temporarily replaced him.
Offaly made five other substitutions during the match, and questions arose concerning the blood replacement.
On Sunday Kellaghan came back on to the field after the half-time break but did not replace Coughlan.
Instead, he took the place of Trevor Phelan. This, argued Kildare, had the strict effect of turning Kellaghan’s earlier replacement by Coughlan into one of the five substitutions permitted under rule and rendered his return another of those five, so that by the end of the match Offaly had made six substitutions.
Under the GAA’s Match Regulation 11, “A temporary substitution (blood), which is under the control of the referee, can be made from any one of the allowable panel (up to 30 in senior, 24 in other intercounty)”.
Farther on, at 11.2 Control – Player with blood injury resuming playing, the rule states: “(i) When the player who had the blood injury is ready to resume playing, he shall present himself to the linesman at the substitution zone and await authorisation from the linesman before entering the field of play.
“(iii) The player shall only enter the field of play on the authorisation of the linesman.”
Kellaghan did not present himself to the linesman when re-taking the field and he was announced as replacing Trevor Phelan, not Coughlan. This is not compatible with blood replacement.
Rule 11 (above) also states that a temporary substitution only comes within the definition if the injured player returns as a direct replacement for the temporary substitute or for any other player if the temporary substitute has previously been sent off or substituted.
If it was Offaly’s wish to replace Phelan, the correct formulation of the substitution paper, which team officers hand to the fourth official, should have been “Coughlan for Phelan” rather than “Kellaghan for Phelan”, which implied that Kellaghan had already been replaced earlier in the match.
On Sunday, Pierce Freaney, the fourth official, who is entrusted with monitoring substitutions and blood replacements, outlined why he believed Offaly’s actions had been in order: “The list of the substitutions is very simple, in our book anyway,” said Freaney. “There were five substitutions made and one blood (replacement). In the 15th minute James Coughlan came in for
Pascal Kellaghan as a blood sub, but Kellaghan is entitled to come back on, which he
did, and he doesn’t need to replace the
player who replaced him.”
As can be seen above, under Rule 11 (i),
(ii) and (iii) this is questionable.
More positively from Offaly’s viewpoint
is that the Leinster Council, even if it
receives an interpretation from Central
Council deeming Offaly’s actions
contrary to rule, is not required
to make Offaly forfeit the
match or even order a replay.
An amended rule, passed at
this year’s congress, gives
options depending on how
serious the breach of rule is
considered.
Given Offaly’s sixth replacement came on in the last
minute, the breach of rule – if
that is what it is – could not be
said to have had a serious
bearing on the result and the
Leinster Council might conclude a fine is in order.
From this, i gather the following;
1. Kildare did put forward an argument last night against the result.
2. They have until wednesday though to officially object.
3. Offaly do appear to have fecked up the paperwork for Pascal's reintroduction
4. The croke park official also was confused by this and called it wrong
5. Offaly did not get any advantage as only 20 players were used, Pascal was genuinely injured, and the last sub was when offaly were out of sight and did not affect the game at all
6. Thus The lack of any advantage accruing should mean that central council can go with the very sensible option of a fine.
