Diarmuid Connolly made a serious allegation against Lee Keegan after their tangle in Croke Park

Almost a month after and we finally get to the bottom of yet another GAA saga.

The Disputes Resolution Authority  has finally published the long awaited report into how Diarmuid Connolly overturned his one match ban, to play in the Mayo-Dublin All-Ireland semi-final replay, and it makes for very detailed, and interesting reading. The Dublin half-forward was initially sent off for an incident when he was dragged to the ground by Lee Keegan in the dying stages of last month's drawn game with Mayo. https://twitter.com/NoNotNiall/status/638611086539902976 Connolly was handed a one-match ban and was set to  miss the replay after having his appeal rejected by both the Central Hearings Committee and then the Central Appeals Committee, until a last minute appeal to the DRA cleared the three-time All-Ireland winner to feature. The DRA issued a brief statement explaining the decision the day of the replay with a more detailed judgement promised within two weeks.

"The Panel's decision related to lack of fair procedure afforded to Mr. Connolly at an early stage in the GAA's internal disciplinary process which unfairly hindered the preparations for, and presentation of, his defence. Mr Connolly was thus free to play in the replay of the above match on 5 September."

https://twitter.com/DaveMcIntyreNT/status/640047303626215424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/nbrez/status/640064150337658880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw However, it has taken a full three weeks for the full report to be published, If you can make your way through the 43 pages it is a fascinating snapshot of the seemingly archaic GAA disciplinary system and the loopholes that teams use to bend the rules. Connolly, and his manager Jim Gavin, made the case that the Dublin forward was acting in self defence, and that's why he appeared to 'strike' out at Keegan when both men were on the ground. The reports claims that Connolly accused Keegan of 'choking' him:

"In this instance the Claimant was in a chokehold and was entitled to take protective measures. It was submitted that the action taken by the Claimant was a reasonable response to the circumstances that he found himself in and should be judged on that basis."

The report makes clear that the claim of self defence was rejected by the CAC as "there is no such Rule in the Official Guide." The DRA argued however that a player should be allowed to defend themselves. The DRA found that Connolly's one match ban should not stand because of six key points in their judgement and that Connolly's  right  to fair procedures and natural justice "was breached in many ways."

• The Claimant was not given details of the entire evidence against him (as was his right under Rule).

•  The Claimant was not given an opportunity to test that evidence, particularly, the evidence based on hearsay.

• The Claimant was not afforded any right to scrutinise and question the entire evidence against him.

•  The Claimant was not afforded the opportunity to present evidence in support of his position.

•  The CHC erred and failed to take account of potential relevant considerations to the detriment of the Claimant.

•  The CHC erred in not exercising their discretion under Rule in making a request for clarification where it was manifest that it should have been exercised.

The decision reached was by majority 2-1 vote and it is only the second time that such a verdict was returned by the DRA. One of the members of the panel, solicitor Brian Rennick, is quoted in the report as expressing his grave unhappiness with the decision to allow Connolly play. He felt that the CHC should have re-heard Connolly's appeal rather than have the DRA allow him play

"It is my view that the Claimant in this instance was afforded fair procedures, there being no misapplication of any of the rules complained of and there being no breach of accepted principles of fair procedures, natural and constitutional justice, such as would entitle this Tribunal to interfere with any of the decisions made."

"I strenuously disagree therefore with the majority decision which finds that there was “a significant impairment of the rights of the Claimant, which was disproportionate, irrational and unfair."

"It is my view that in instances where the DRA finds that there has been a breach of fair procedures that can be remedied that the case should be remitted to the CHC for re-hearing with directions as to how to correct the breaches complained of."

https://twitter.com/JohnFogartyIrl/status/645981384943734784 https://twitter.com/PaulRouseUCD/status/645979683151028224

The full report is here, it could also help cure insomnia.