Rory O'Connell case in the High Court

Imposter

I've just heard that Rory O'Connell is taking the case against his suspension to the high court.

To recap for those who don't know: He was sent off against Offaly for alledgedly stamping on a player off-the-ball. The player who was alledged to have been stamped on has come out and said that he wasn't. The GAA have stood firm to the referees report and given O'Connell 12 a week suspension. No video evidence of the incident has surfaced.

Links:
breaking news
hogan stand

What do people think?

I reckon this action is justified. Referees reports are treated as gospel when in a lot of cases they are far from the truth. Also the whole suspension system in the GAA is ridiculous. A player who is suspended in May for 12 weeks misses more or less the whole championship while someone who gets 6 months in September misses nothing (well the league, but still nothing).

I can see major problems for the GAA if O'Connell wins this case and hopefully it will cause the GAA to address the points I made above. The other problem is what happens on Sunday if he does play? The GAA will not want to back down on their position but what if the high court forces them? Does it set a dangerous precedent for players who believe they were suspended unfairly? Whatever happens have the popcorn ready and sit back, there should be some sparks flying from somewhere!

watman

O'Connell case deferred

Rory O'Connell's High Court case against the GAA has been deferred until Tuesday morning, July 13.
The case was due to take place on Monday, but has been put back 24 hours.

The Westmeath midfielder, who is currently serving a three-month ban for an alleged stamping offence, is seeking a High Court injunction which would free him to play in Sunday's Leinster football final against Laois.

Hopefully he will be allowed rejoin the squad and be part of the squad for Sundays Game against Laois .

Na hIarmhi Abu

watman

O'Connell Case deferred

Rory O'Connell's High Court case against the GAA has been deferred until Wednesday morning, July 14. The case was due to take place on Monday, but has been put back 48 hours

watman

O'Connell wins his High Court Battle

Westmeath footballer Rory O'Connell has been cleared by the High Court to play in Sunday's Leinster Football Final.

The Westmeath midfielder was originally banned for 12 weeks after an alleged stamping offence on Offaly's Pascal Kellaghan in his county's Leinster first round victory over Offaly in May.

However, he took his case to the High Court and udge Sean O'Laoire today ruled that the decision of the GAA in suspending O'Connell was ineffective because written evidence was not considered.

It now remains to be seen what action the GAA will take regard O'Connell's suspension, but it seems almost certain that the Westmeath star will be free to represent his county against Laois in Sunday's encounter.

Mighty_Mouse

Whilst I don't feel 100% comfortable with the whole affair I must admit i'm delighted for him. Will he immediately knock Gary Dolan off the team?Or which forward will go for Dolan to move into a forward position?

Imposter

Apparently he'll be starting on the bench. Still we won't know for sure until the team is named, at the earliest

redspider

I'm not comfortable with this episode. For one, the ban seemed way over the top at 12 weeks. Isn't 4 weeks a standard amount? Or should GAA change their rules so that it actually affects competitive games. ie: a player should miss the next two competitive championship games. That seems much fairer on everyone.

There are legal considerations to consider as well with this. Whilst I haven't read the judgement, the only way for the legal system to play a part in sports in this way is if the people, officials, etc that are runnnig the sport are seen as discrimanatory towards an individual. Obviously, the GAA didn't break any rules of their sport which in turn broke the law. Rules in sport are not part of any law, but discrimination is.

How the judges could say that it was discrimination is unclear if they have a referee's evidence and a perpetrators and victim's evidence to go on. I dont know who appeared at the sitting but did any Garda Siochana or other individuals within society give evidence on the incident if they saw it, probably not. Perhaps the judges looked into the GAA rulebooks, read up about what is typical punishment, etc and saw that the 12 weeks were overboard. If the latter is the case, then there is nothing to stop the GAA imposing another ban on the player say for 6 weeks.

I haven't heard any comment from the powers that be at Croke Park and the press seem to be shying away from the issue tbh. Maybe the GAA are just willing to take it as a mistake and move on.

But overall, I dont like anyone going to the High Court for stuff like this. Will this set a precedent for every one to do the same? Its only the legal eagles that win in the end.

Waylander

I think the court case was seeking an injunction allowing him to play for the county until his appeal was heard by the GAC, I do not think the actual incident he was banned for was even entirely relevant to the court proceeding. I may be wrong on this as I have not read into it in any details, but that was my understanding of the situatiuon.

Imposter

Here's an article from the indo . Here's the bits that are relevant ot this discussion:

O'Connell's success, coming so soon after Longford player David Barden was successfully granted a High Court injunction against a six-month suspension in April, has serious ramifications for the GAA's disciplinary system.

The GAA has not had much success in High Court battles against individuals in recent years.

In 1994 Tipperary footballer Derry Foley got an injunction against a suspension which allowed him to play in the Munster football final against Cork which they lost heavily.

And two years ago Tipperary minor hurler John Boland was granted an injunction against a suspension handed down to him by the North Tipperary Board after being sent off for Toomevara in a minor match which threatened to rule him out of the All-Ireland minor hurling final that year against Kilkenny. Boland was freed to play by the High Court but did not fare well in the match and was taken off.

The GAA's only notable success in the High Court saw a decision by the Dublin County Board to throw Na Fianna out of the 2002 championship for using six substitutes instead of the permitted five sustained.

O'Connell's case will once again reopen the debate about whether match suspensions should completely replace the time suspensions that are currently favoured by GAA disciplinary bodies.

Under the suspension handed down to him, O'Connell would not have been eligible to play again until August 15 and in that time could have missed up to five games for his county if they remained in the championship that long.

It is widely felt in Westmeath that if O'Connell had been given a two-match ban he would never have considered a High Court action.

Ó Faolain agrees that the GAA's punitive system must be "searchingly looked into" in light of recent High Court cases.

"People in Westmeath could not understand how two of our players ended up with broken jaws over the last 14 months yet only one four-week suspension was handed down in one of those cases yet Rory is hit with three months and up to five huge games for something where there was no injury," said Ó Faolain.

The Westmeath County Board had written to Central Council last week for clarification on the mode of communication whereby a linesman informs a referee of an offence he claims to have witnessed.

Westmeath contend that such incidents must be reported face to face by the two men and not by two-way radio communication.

Colm Keys

And another more relevant to this particular discussion:
Link

Banned footballer wins first leg of court clash with GAA

ALL-star footballer Rory O'Connell yesterday won a High Court order which entitles him to line out for Westmeath on Sunday in his county's first a Leinster senior football final for 55 years.

Mr O'Connell was banned for three months after being sent off during a first round game against Offaly last May for stamping on an opponent - an allegation he totally denies.

The ban would have left him ineligible to line out against Laois in Croke Park this weekend.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Sean O'Leary granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the GAA authorities from imposing the suspension pending the full trial of the action.

Mr Justice O'Leary said a letter from Offaly player Paschal Kelleghan, who was unable to identify the person responsible for a blow to his head, was admissible but had not been considered by the GAA Games Administration Committee (GAC). Fair procedures were not followed.

Rory O'Connell, in an affidavit, said he did not know why he was being sent off when shown the red card. On May 23, he was notified he had been reported for stamping on an opponent.

He believed a linesman had misinterpreted an innocent entanglement after a tussle for the ball and said this was confirmed by the account of the opposing player.

Mr O'Connell contacted Paschal Kelleghan, who was allegedly the subject of the stamping incident, and Mr Kelleghan agreed to write to him confirming that he was unable to say Mr O'Connell had stamped on him.

The letter revealed that the only incident of which Mr Kelleghan complained was a blow to the head while he was standing and which caused him to fall. The GAC did not read out this letter and Mr O'Connell found out at an appeal hearing that it had not been taken into account because it had not been submitted through Offaly County Board.

Liam Mulvihill, director general of the GAA, in an affidavit, said that Mr O'Connell was not challenging the referee's decision to send him off.

He acknowledged he was involved in "an entanglement after a tussle for the ball" involving Paschal Kelleghan.

Notwithstanding Rory O'Connell's denials, it was evident that a serious incident occurred which led to the sending off.

The referee's report stated that the sending off was due to Mr O'Connell having "stamped on an opponent". The GAA treated the referee's report as conclusive with regard to matters referred to in the report.

Mr Mulvihill pointed out that Mr O'Connell was not challenging the competence and jurisdiction of the management committee. As a voluntary member of the GAA who had agreed to be bound by its rules, he said, Mr O'Connell could not invoke the court's jurisdiction to effectively create a further right of appeal to which he had no entitlement under GAA rules.

He said there was no evidence that Mr O'Connell had been denied fair procedures.

John Maddock

Imposter

Mr Justice O'Leary said a letter from Offaly player Paschal Kelleghan, who was unable to identify the person responsible for a blow to his head, was admissible but had not been considered by the GAA Games Administration Committee (GAC). Fair procedures were not followed.

This is the important bit. That goes against what redspider said but so also does all of those other rulings if I remember their particulars correctly.

I don't agree with court action, in general, either but this problem with suspensions has been talked about for as long as I can remember. It is sad that this is what is needed in order to get fairness but I don't see that as O'Connells problem. It has to be seen as an error on the part of the GAA. Hopefully this will cause the GAA to do something about it's suspension system.

redspider

OK, seemingly the suspension of the player was deemed to be unfair as the GAA did not take into account a letter sent by the victim as it was not structured correctly! The judge deemed that it should have been taken into account and as it was not the decision by the GAA to ban the player was not a fair treatment.

So, this is a real minor technicality. If the GAA would have taken that letter into consideration and still came up with the same decision, then the high-court judge could NOT have made this ruling, although its unclear if there was another technicality that it could have been judged on in O'Connells favour.

Overall, its messy, and the legal system has no way of deiciding spotying issues. The GAA could take it badly, as dragging their inadequacies of officialdom into the general public like this, and it was bad PR, could make them act even mre unfairly. But, it may result in them looking at themselves and getting their act together. Lets hope so.

Imposter

Originally posted by redspider
So, this is a real minor technicality. If the GAA would have taken that letter into consideration and still came up with the same decision, then the high-court judge could NOT have made this ruling, although its unclear if there was another technicality that it could have been judged on in O'Connells favour.

Imo they have to look at all available evidence. They didn't do that preffering, as in the norm, to side with the referee and the other officials. In the absense of video evidence a letter from the 'victim' should hold some serious weight (even if such a letter may not be 100% accurate) but ignoring it was bang out of order. If there was video evidence they have to consider it for fear of a backlash so why should this situation be any different.

Overall, its messy, and the legal system has no way of deiciding spotying issues. The GAA could take it badly, as dragging their inadequacies of officialdom into the general public like this, and it was bad PR, could make them act even mre unfairly. But, it may result in them looking at themselves and getting their act together.
Lets hope so.

I can't see them acting unfairly. They have to take each and every case on it's merits. Otherwise there'll be a backlash as this case proves. They simply cannot afford to alienate players and officials by sticking to this protecting the officials line they have been using for too long now.

heftie

Hi just read your post with interest , any idea how I'd tackle a GAA issue of discrimination,would prefer to sort out amicably but not over-optimisic??