About One Minute to get Rid of the G.A.A. Ban 50 Years Ago!
First Published April 2021
‘The Ban passed away at 11.45 am in the Whitla Hall, Queen’s University, Belfast yesterday. Only one voice, that of one of the oldest delegates, Mr. Lar Brady of Laois, was raised in protest after the president, Mr. Pat Fanning, formally declared that Rule 27 had been deleted from the G.A.A. Rule Book.”
So reported Raymond Smith on the front page of the Irish Independent on Monday, April 12, 1971. He went on to add that ‘A show of hands was not taken as representatives of 30 of the 32 counties, at their county conventions, already had indicated clearly that they wanted the rule to go and, as Mr. Fanning said, he did not believe there was any need for discussion. The process took about one minute. Far from the electric and explosive atmosphere that some outside G.A.A. circles had anticipated, the Ban died quietly and with dignity.’
As well as Rule 27, which was abolished on the proposition of Con Shortt of Armagh and seconded by Tom Woulfe, Dublin (who for many years had advocated the abolition of the rule), went Rule 28, vigilance committees, and Rule 29, which prevented G.A.A. clubs including foreign dances at social functions. Rule 26, which prevented members of the British forces and police from being members of the G.A.A., also on the clár remained. The motion calling for its abolition wasn’t even moved, perhaps because of the escalating trouble in Northern Ireland at the time.
Tipperary in Agreement
At the Tipperary county convention at Thurles on January 31 under the chairmanship of Seamus Ó Riain, the delegates decided to abolish the Ban. John O’Grady (Moycarkey-Borris), who for many years had called for its abolition, proposed the abolition of Rule 27, which debarred G.A.A. members from playing or attending soccer, rugby, hockey or cricket games, and Rule 28, which set up vigilance committees to enforce Rule 27. The motion was seconded by S. O’Dwyer of Thurles Fennellys. There was little debate and only two opposition speakers, and a show of hands revealed a majority of 134 to 57 in favour of abolition. The abolition of Rule 29, which forbade G.A.A. clubs from running non-Irish dances, was proposed by Michael Ryan of Arravale Rovers and passed by a large majority. Another motion from Arravale Rovers to abolish Rule 26, which debarred members of the British forces from membership of the G.A.A., was withdrawn.
Delegates representing the county at congress in Belfast on the weekend of 10-11 April were as follows: county chairman, Seamus Ó Riain, and county secretary, Tomás Ó Baróid,
North division, Hubie Hogan & Martin O’Connor, South division, Phil O’Shea & Jimmy Collins, Mid division, John O’Grady & Michael Small, West division, Michael Maguire & Jimmy Hennessy. While most of them travelled to Belfast by car or train, the North delegates flew from Shannon Airport to Belfast. Jimmy Collins drove to Dublin and took the train from there. He recalls getting up early the first morning and going for a walk down Sandy Row, without incident! He remembers a great concert on Saturday night, which included the Chieftains.
Abolished with Ease
The ease with which the Ban was abolished at the congress came as a major surprise to most people but the public attitude towards it had changed dramatically in the three years since it last appeared on the congress clár in 1968. It was defeated by 220 votes to 80 on that occasion but, though it wasn’t realised at the time, it was the beginning of the end for the Ban. The congress did make a gesture to those who wanted its removal by setting up a committee to examine it but since the members were chosen from the pro-Ban central committee, it was regarded with a certain scepticism. Former secretary of Down County Board, Maurice Hayes, commented that the composition of the committee was ‘rather like the Unionist Party appointing a committee of ex-Grand Masters to discuss the validity of the Orange order.’ During the years leading up to 1971 in spite of some strong defence of the Ban, the general trend was for its abolition. The committee set up to examine the Ban reported in November 1970 and agreed that the Ban should stay, that ‘it was an outward sign of the association’s exclusively and national motivation’ and that it should be retained for practical and idealistic reasons: ‘If Rule 27 were removed this would weaken the idealistic motive which inspires so many people to give voluntary service to the G.A.A. By its demand for exclusive allegiance to a National course, the G.A.A. claims an attribute that no mere sporting organisation can claim. This puts its games above other sports – games with a mission – and it would be foolish to allow that patriotic motive to be reduced.’
However, fewer G.A.A. followers were willing to subscribe to such lofty ideals. In the same year as the committee reported, there were demonstrations against the South African rugby team in Dublin and the G.A.A. Ban was compared with apartheid on the Late Late Show. The Ban was seen as discriminatory as the practices in some Dublin golf clubs against Jews and women. It was also likened to the Berlin Wall. All-Ireland footballer and Government Minister, Sean Flanagan, expressed the opinion that that G.A.A. would become ‘an empire without citizens’ if it didn’t remove the Ban. There were protests against the Ban outside Croke Park for the Leinster football final of 1970. A motion passed at the 1970 congress called on all clubs and county boards to put forward their views on the Ban before the next congress. If the pro-Ban people were hoping that the grass roots would come down in favour of the status quo, they were badly disillusioned. A substantial majority of clubs and counties came out in favour of removing the Ban and thirty out of the thirty two counties had motions in favour of removing Rule 27 at congress. As if anticipating the outcome of the congress a picture appeared in the Irish Independent some months before the event showing Mick O’Connell standing in a crowd at a soccer match!
The expectation was best expressed by Mitchel Cogley, sports editor of the Irish Independent in an opinion piece on the front page of the newspaper on the Saturday morning of congress weekend: ‘The matter has been comprehensively threshed out at club and county level over the past few months, with an overwhelming majority at all levels for the removal of the Ban . . . it would appear that the Ban must go! . . . If it is not then what price DEMOC(K)RACY?’
Evolution of the Ban
The Ban didn’t spring full blown into existence but the first intimations of the rule came as early as 1885 when the G.A.A. decided that ‘any athletes competing at meetings held under other laws than those of the G.A.A. shall be ineligible for competing at any meetings held under the auspices of the Gaelic Athletic Association.’ Until then athletes competed under the rules of the English AAA, which rules themselves were exclusionary.
The first instance of the exclusion of games and persons associated with them came at the reconvened convention on February 27, 1886, when it was decided on the proposition of John Cullinan of Bansha and seconded by D. H. Ryan of Limerick ‘that affiliated clubs be requested not to play football or hurling matches against any club which is not a properly organised club playing under Gaelic Rules.’ According to Mac Lua this was aimed at insistence on proper affiliation and the ostracism of rugby clubs. The exclusion idea was further developed at the executive meeting on September 27 when Maurice Davin suggested that persons playing under rugby or other non-Gaelic rules should not be eligible for membership of the association. When the revised constitution of the G.A.A. was adopted at the second annual convention at Thurles on November 15, 1886, the Ban appeared as Rule 12: ‘Any member of a club in Ireland playing hurling, handball or football under any rules than those of the G.A.A. cannot be a member of the Association, and neither can members of any other athletic club in Ireland be a member of the G.A.A.’ The exclusion rule was further expanded at a special convention on January 4, 1888, when the following resolution was proposed and adopted: ‘That no member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, including the Dublin Metropolitan Police be eligible for membership of an affiliated club, or be allowed to compete in any Gaelic sports.’
The G.A.A. went into decline in the early 1890s because of internal difficulties and as a result of the Parnell Split. Only three counties attended the 1893 convention and only five at the 1894. The 1893 convention removed the Rule that excluded the RIC. The 1896 convention discarded the Ban. It arose from an appeal by Tom Irwin against his expulsion by Cork county board for having played rugby. The executive ruled that members of the association were entitled to play any game they liked. It also ruled that the G.A.A. ‘shall be strictly a non-political and non-sectarian association.’
According to Mac Lua it was a desperate attempt by the G.A.A. not to offend any more people and to win back those that had been lost in the post-Parnell Split, as well as by the Ban and the RIC rule. The G.A.A. was in a state of flux for a while.
Revival
The celebrations that took place around the country in connection with the 1798 Centenary revived the national spirit and the G.A.A. was reborn. Another important development was the election of Michael Deering of Cork as president at the 1898 annual congress. The new national fervour gradually led to the revival of the Ban. At the annual convention of 1900 Michael Cusack protested against the presence of RIC bands at many G.A.A. sports meetings and called for a re-affirmation of the separatist spirit which motivated the founding fathers of the association.
At the 1901 convention T. F. O’Sullivan proposed ‘That handicappers holding licences from the Association be prevented from officiating at police sports meetings under penalty of having their licences cancelled and that no permits be granted to the promoters of athletic meetings under the auspices of Dublin Castle.’ The motion was seconded by Michael Cusack and carried. The new national fervour found further expression in a second motion by T. F. O’Sullivan at the reconvened convention. He proposed ‘That we the representatives of the Gaels of Ireland in convention assembled hereby pledge ourselves to resist every means in our power the extension of English pastimes to this country, as a means of preventing the Anglicisation of our people: that County Committees be empowered to disqualify and suspend members of the Association who countenance sports which are calculated to interfere with the preservation and cultivation of our own national pastimes: that we call on the young men of Ireland not to identify themselves with rugby or Association football or any other form of imported sport which is likely to injuriously affect the national pastimes which the G.A.A provides for self-respected Irishmen who have no desire to ape foreign manners and customs . . .’ The motion was seconded by Denis O’Keeffe of Thurles. In the same year James Nowlan was elected president of the association and was to have an important influence on the direction of the G.A.A..
O’Sullivan’s motion, which was listed as Rule 28, was amended at the 1902 convention as follows: ‘That any member of the Association, who plays or encourages in any way rugby or Association Football, hockey, or any other imported game which is calculated to injuriously affect our national pastimes, be suspended from the Association and that this resolution apply to all counties in Ireland and England.’ The Ban as we know it today had arrived. The same convention also sanctioned the setting up of Vigilance Committees for athletic purposes. The idea was put forward earlier in the year at a central council meeting at Thurles, proposed by T. F. O’Sullivan and seconded by J. D. O’Brien of Tipperary. Counties were requested to appoint committees ‘to report illegal meetings and detect illegal practices in connection with athletics under G.A.A. laws’. The police rule came back at this time as Rule 28A: ‘That police, soldiers, sailors in the British Navy, pensioners from the British Army or Navy, be prevented from playing hurling or football or competing at athletic meetings under G.A.A. laws.’ By 1916 the Ban was firmly established.
Mixed Views on the Ban
Following the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the Civil War motions on the Ban appeared again. Supporters of the Treaty were of the opinion that the Ban was no longer required with the departure of the British. In contrast the republicans were for its retention. The debate on the Ban was really a reflection of the political divisions rather than opinion on the Ban. However most motions to abolish the Ban failed and the vote to retain it at the 1926 convention was passed by 80 votes to 23. In the same year a motion was passed that votes on the Ban would in future be taken only every three years.
In fact the Ban was strengthened when a decision was taken to have Gaelic games the only sports played in the Free State Army. Vigilance Committees were also reactivated. Hockey was disallowed at the Tailteann Games. The Ban was extended in the 1930s to prevent G.A.A. members from organising any form of entertainment with ‘foreign dances’. This was extended in 1932 to include the banning of G.A.A. members from attending any ‘foreign dance’. G.A.A. members were also prohibited from writing on G.A.A. matters for any foreign newspapers from 1940. The Free State Government favoured the G.A.A. In 1927 the Association was the only sporting body exempted from income tax on profits it earned. The Ban was given impetus in 1932 when the IRFU, which up to then used to fly the Union Jack when Ireland played at Belfast, and a Rugby Union flag, which included the coats of arms of the four provinces, when playing at Lansdowne Road, was forced to fly the National flag at the Dublin venue. The Ban against things foreign was given further support with the passing of the Public Dance Halls Act of 1935, which made it impossible to hold dances ‘without the sanction of the trinity of clergy, police and judiciary’.
Foreign Dances
There is a classic example of the implementation of this act in Cashel. Dean Innocent Ryan, a powerful figure in the town at the time was out for a stroll on a Sunday night in the summer of 1935 when he overheard a hullaballoo in the upper portion of the City Hall: ‘ I went to see how matters stood. The place was packed. I must say that the class of dance being indulged in was most objectionable. There was nothing Irish about it’. The Dean, not believing what he was watching, ordered his parishioners to go home at once. Most of the rabble obeyed him. The Dean was horrified to see the influence of foreign dancing creeping into the ballrooms and the likelihood of corrupting the innocent youth of the town. He called an urgent meeting of the Urban District Council and told the councillors that ‘This Hall has become a centre of immorality and a source of pestilence to religion and country.’ The Council took the side of the Dean in his war against what he called ‘dirty dancing’. It was agreed the hall would be used only for the purpose of ‘Old Time Dances’. A list of 15 rules was drawn up as to how to behave in a moral way at such dances and they were printed in the local newspapers. Rule 3 stated: ‘The jazz and what is known as ‘slow motion’ dances shall be taboo in the Hall.’ Rule 5 stated ‘There shall be no dancing after midnight.’ Rule 9 stated ‘Indelicacy in dress on the part of women dancers to be instantly reproved by persons in charge; extravagance in dress on the part of our girls – especially of working class – to be discouraged. All women dancers recommended to use Irish-made materials rather than flimsy, foreign silks and satins.’
Implementation of the Ban
It’s difficult to measure how the Ban was implemented. There were so many aspects to it, not to play foreign games, not to attend foreign games, not to organise foreign dances, etc that the vast number of G.A.A. members must have faithfully obeyed the rules or else the Ban was poorly enforced. The main implementation arm of the G.A.A.. was the Vigilance Committee but not every county had one. There is the well-known story of Mick Mackey, the outstanding hurler of the 1930s, who was a great lover of rugby and an alleged frequenter of rugby matches. The Limerick county board were fearful that he might be caught so they made him a member of their Vigilance Committee!. On the other hand not every county had such a committee and if they had and if they were active one would expect many more members of the G.A.A to have been suspended.
There is an interesting case study from a North Tipperary G.A.A. Board meeting, as reported in the Nenagh Guardian on July 11, 1936. The meeting was called to hear an objection by Bawnmore-Eglish to Ballingarry being awarded a junior hurling championship game, which they won by 10 points to 8 points on June 14, the same year. The grounds for the objection were that two Ballingarry players, John McKenna and Dan Treacy, had attended a rugby dance in the Oxmantown Hall, Birr on December 26, 1935. The chairman, S. F. Gardiner, quoted the rule under which the objection was made that any member of the G.A.A. ‘who plays or encourages in any way rugby or Association Football, hockey or cricket, or participate in dances under the patronage of British soldiers, etc suspends himself from membership of the G.A.A. for 2 years.’
Mr. Kelly, Eglish presented the case for Bawnmore-Eglish. Edward Horan, a witness for club, stated that he saw McKenna go into the hall on December 26, 1935. The chairman asked why the witness hadn’t reported the matter before then.
Mr. Kelly intervened to say it was the duty of the Vigilance Committee to do so. The chairman replied that they had enough to do in North Tipperary without going into Birr. He went on to say that it looked bad that the witness hadn’t reported the matter and added: ‘It seems to me now you did it in the interests of the club and not in the interests of the G.A.A.’
Mr. Cronin, a member of the board, said the witness wasn’t in the hall and couldn’t see the man. The chairman asked if the person could go into the hall and not to the dance. The witness replied: ‘I do not see what other business he would have in the hall.’
At this stage another witness, William Shanny, stated he was at the dance. The chairman said he couldn’t accept his evidence because he had automatically suspended himself by being there and his evidence could not be accepted!
Mr. Kelly stated that if the chairman wanted further witnesses he could ask the Offaly county board as one of their Vigilance Committee was present. The chairman replied it was that person’s duty to report the matter to the Offaly county board, which in turn would have reported the matter to him.
In further discussion Mr. Kelly asked if the chairman would accept the evidence of a band member. When there were further refusals to accept the evidence given, Mr., Kelly suggested that the board investigate the matter further and give the club a chance to bring forward some more witnesses, The chairman refused and in his summary he said that the only evidence produced was that of the driver of the car (Horan), who stated that he saw McKenna going into the hall and questioned why he didn’t report the matter until now. He left it to the members to decide. When the vote was taken the number voting for the objection was 9, those against 16 and abstentions 14.
It is difficult to know if this was the usual way breaches of the Ban were dealt with. Every effort was made by the powers that be to belittle the evidence of the Bawnmore-Eglish club and to cast doubt on the motivation of it. It is important to know that John McKenna was a high profile figure, having won an senior hurling All-Ireland with Tipperary in 1930. Also a fellow member of the team was Mick Cronin, who contributed at the board meeting!
A Momentous Year
The year 1938 was to be a momentous year for the Ban with a number of high-profile cases, particularly the suspension of President Douglas Hyde. The first case had to do with a Munster Council game. Tipperary played Clare in the Munster hurling championship semi-final on June 26 and won by 3-10 to 2-3. However, the result was objected to on the grounds that one of the players, Jimmy Cooney, was ineligible and Tipperary lost the game on a Clare objection to the result. Cooney had attended a rugby international at Lansdowne Road the previous February, was reported and suspended for three months from the date of the match, February 12. His suspension was removed on May 14. Because the player resided outside the county, he had to make a declaration to play for his county every year. Ten days before attending the rugby match he sent a signed declaration form to the Tipperary county board. For some reason it wasn’t forwarded to Central Council until shortly before Easter. President P. McNamee ruled that the declaration was invalid since Cooney was debarred from all G.A.A. activities, even making a declaration, while suspended. He was, therefore, ineligible to play for the county. When the Tipperary county board disputed the ruling by stating that Cooney’s declaration was made on February 2, Central Council replied it was on the date the declaration was received that mattered. The county board refused to accept this ruling and played Cooney in a Monaghan Cup game in London on June 6. On the night before Tipperary were due to play Clare in the Munster semi-final, President McNamee ruled Cooney ineligible on the grounds that his declaration was received during his term of suspension and as such was not eligible, and he was illegal to play in London and as a result had suspended himself for another six months!. Tipperary county board persisted with their claim that Cooney’s declaration was in order and played him against Clare. They won the game well but were objected to. Chairman of the Clare county board, Rev. M. Hamilton, stated that the objection was not vindictive on the part of Clare Gaels, inasmuch as they considered themselves to have been squarely beaten by Tipperary, but as there seemed to be a challenge to the authority of the association, they felt bound in the interests of the public name of the G.A.A., and the high sense of discipline it stood for, to make the only protest at their disposal against what seemed to be an apparent illegality. Having lost the game some players disagreed with the playing of Cooney against Clare. According to them there was no need and the matter ought to have been cleared beforehand. The team would easily have beaten Clare without Cooney and, as All-Ireland champions might have gone ahead and made it a double. The Tipperary county board’s persistence in playing Cooney had a certain pig-headedness about it. On the other hand the episode appeared to many ‘that the G.A.A. was being overly pedantic as well as being completely intransigent.’
G.A.A. Patron Suspended
These qualities were revealed to an even greater degree in the association’s treatment of President Douglas Hyde in the same year. Douglas Hyde (1860-1949) was elected first President of Ireland in June 1938. He was already a Patron of the G.A.A. On November 13 he attended his first soccer match, an international between Ireland and Poland at Dalymount Park, which Ireland won by 3-2. Also present at the game was Eamon de Valera, Minister Oscar Traynor, the Attorney General, Alfie Byrne, the Lord Mayor of Dublin and 34,000 spectators. The President’s attendance was widely reported in the media and sparked off a lot of debate. Sinn Fein held its Árd Fhéis the same day and the President was criticised for his attendance. It re-opened the debate on the Ban and the question was asked, If the President could get away with it, why have a Ban! The debate resulted in the Patrick Pearse G.A.A. club in Derry putting down a motion on December 4 to remove him as Patron of the G.A.A. The discussion claimed that the same rules should apply to the President as well as to everyone else. Against this it was argued that it was a discourtesy to the President to propose his expulsion and that the man should be distinguished from his office. Other G.A.A. clubs and county boards followed the Derry club’s lead. The discussion of the President’s action was the main news leading up to the Central Council meeting on December 17. At the meeting President McNamee moved, with little debate, that President Hyde had ceased to be a patron of the G.A.A. by his action of going to the soccer match. He argued that the rules were absolute and no one could breach them regardless of their station in life. The Ban was the G.A.A.’s most potent tool in its war against the Anglicisation of Ireland. The reaction of the public was generally one of outrage and condemnation. President Hyde remained silent on the matter and remained so up to his death. The matter remained in the news and it was discussed at club, county and provincial conventions and at the G.A.A. congress in April 1939. The G.A.A. made no attempt to contact the President for the entire duration of his office. It was believed that he should have been contacted and informed of the reasons behind the decision.
Widespread Reaction
The reaction to the removal of President Hyde varied across the country. In Ulster, with the exception of Tyrone, it was well received. In the eyes of Northern Gaels the Ban was seen as paramount to ensuring that they retained their Irishness and as a weapon to oppose the authorities in the North. In Connaught Roscommon G.A.A. supported Hyde and was one of three counties that brought forward a motion to the annual congress calling for his reinstatement. In Mayo the G.A.A. decision was severely criticised. There was much criticism of the G.A.A. failure to implement its own rules on foreign dances. Also, there was the case of Guard George Ormsby, a noted Mayo footballer. He attended a soccer match in Sligo on February 6, 1938. Sligo county board suspended him for being in breach of the Ban rule on foreign games. When it transpired he was at the match in his line of duty as a guard, he was re-instated. As this happened early in the year that President Hyde was suspended, he could equally have been absolved as he was attending the soccer match in his line of duty as President of Ireland. There was a big divide in Munster on the matter. Clare, under the influence of Canon Hamilton, supported the central council. The Canon later claimed that De Valera and Kevin Barry weren’t one hundred percent Irishmen because they played rugby! Kerry supported his reinstatement. Waterford supported central council. Cork were against the suspension. At the mid-Tipperary convention the chairman, Fr. Fogarty maintained that the Ban was ‘making the G.A.A. a source of humiliation for its friends and a laughing stock of its enemies.’ Later, as county chairman, he became a strong defender of the Ban. In Leinster opinions were divided among the counties.
Reconciliation
Following the election of President O’Kelly in 1945 the G.A.A. president, Seamus Gardiner decided to pay a courtesy call on him. This was the first time there was communication between the association and the Government since 1938. Nothing was heard until De Valera contacted the G.A.A. president. requesting a meeting with him and the general secretary. De Valera explained that the President could not ignore the slight which had been offered to Dr. Hyde by the G.A.A. in December 1938 and that precautions should be taken to prevent any similar recurrence in the future. He added that he believed that the patron should not be bound by the ‘foreign games ban rule’ and that he should be invited to important G.A.A. events regardless of whether he attended other sporting events. Following this meeting the central council was called and agreement was reached on De Valera’s requests. Following this development President O’Kelly decided to go to the 1945 All-Ireland finals at which he was received with suitable fanfare. As usual not everyone was happy with the new arrangement. Wexford G.A.A. county board decided to boycott the President on a trip he made to Wexford, for attending ‘foreign games’ in May 1946. It may have been at the same meeting between De Valera and Seamus Gardiner and O’Caoimh that the President requested the G.A.A. to re-instate President Hyde as a member of the G.A.A.. Gardiner is alleged to have agreed but Canon Hamilton was so annoyed that he didn’t speak to Gardiner for a year afterwards!
Progress to Removal of the Ban
In the 1947 congress a motion to remove the Ban was defeated by 180 votes to 5. In 1953 the Lord Mayor of Waterford, Alderman Martin Cullen was suspended from the G.A.A. for attending a foreign game even though he attended in an official capacity. In 1954 Radio Eireann caused consternation in Gaelic Ireland circles by broadcasting a soccer match on St. Patrick’s Day in spite of strong protests. An interesting case was the suspension of Eamon Young of Cork in the early fifties for writing for a Sunday newspaper. This wasn’t allowed since about 1940 and the decision by the Cork county board was ostensibly to uphold the spirit of the G.A.A. In fact it is believed the real reason was Young’s stance on the personnel to travel with the Cork football team, as league champions, to New York. The board included Jim Barry as ‘trainer’ instead of the real trainer, Corporal O’Brien of Young’s club. His appeal against the suspension to the Munster Council was lost with only Kerry supporting it. There is a further interesting episode from Moycarkey sometime in the 1950s. Fr. Dinny O’Meara from the club got Mutt Ryan and Paddy Maher to go into the county convention and vote against a Ban motion, despite the fact that the club voted 80 – 2 the other way. Sean Barry and Der Shanahan, the official club delegates, were refused admission to Scoil Ailbe and told that the club was already represented inside!
The Nationalist reported in February 1956 on the application by Eamonn O’Duibhir, Main Street, Clogheen for re-instatement in the G.A.A. According to him he was automatically suspended for playing rugby with Rockwell College but that he had been compelled to play rugby at the school, where the game was compulsory.
The Ryans of Cashel were a famous sporting family in the fifties and most of them played rugby as well as hurling. The Cashel team that played Thurles in the Munster Junior Cup in March 1958 had six brothers on the team, Donal, Gerard, John, Eddie, Dick and Tony, Ger was in line for a place on the Tipperary minors but was suspended for playing rugby, but never got his notice. Apparently he was listed on the team as J. Ryan, and the suspension was sent to John by mistake!
Michael Dundon, former editor of the Tipperary Star, has an interesting account of his suspension under the Ban. He was one of seven members of a local soccer team in Thurles that was going well in the second half of the sixties, four of them from Thurles Sarsfields and three from Kickhams. They were suspended at a county board meeting in 1967. Dundon was at the same meeting as a reporter for the Tipperary Star but only heard of the suspension afterwards, because it never came up at the meeting! Having contacted the county G.A.A. secretary he was informed it had come up and the seven of them suspended! At any rate none of them was ever officially notified of their suspension nor informed when they could return. It seemed to be a case of finding unimportant victims to show that the board was serious about the Ban. In their case their suspensions didn’t make much difference as they all played junior hurling. When it came to dealing with the county’s star hurler, Jimmy Doyle, the treatment was different. Jimmy was reported for attending a rugby match and summoned to a board meeting. He attended and explained that when taking the dog for a walk along the Brittas Road he saw a rugby match in progress and wandered in to see what was happening. ‘And did you watch the match’, he was asked. ‘I did,’ replied Jimmy. So the board was in a pickle. He was guilty and would have to be suspended but you couldn’t have the county lose its best forward for six months! Eventually they found a solution. ‘And did you pay to get in?’ ‘’’deed I didn’t!’ replied Jimmy. ‘Ah!, you’re okay, so!’ he was informed.
Tom Woulfe
One of the great proponents of the abolition of the Ban was Kerryman, Tom Woulfe, the chairman of the Dublin Civil Service G.A.A. Club. According to Cormac Moore ‘His personal motivation stemmed from an incident in 1948 when he was involved in a Vigilance Committee for Dublin county board, where a person was suspended for playing a foreign game and that person subsequently took no further part in the G.A.A. Woulfe was disgusted by the experience and refused to act as a vigilante again’. Instead he set about campaigning for the abolition of the Ban starting with an investigation into the usefulness of the Ban by his own club. He kept the Ban high up in the agenda at congresses during the 1960s. The division between the two camps became entrenched and the debate more and more acrimonious during this decade. The motion to remove the Ban was defeated by 282 votes to 52 in 1965. The World Cup and its television coverage in 1966 gave a great boost to the spread of soccer. In the same year Tomás Ó Fiaich claimed that the Ban didn’t help the G.A.A.’s aim to end Partition. Minister for Education, Donagh O’Malley came out strongly for its removal. In 1967 there was talk of removing Jack Lynch from the G.A.A. because he attended a rugby match. The following year he spoke out against the divisive nature of the Ban. In spite of these arguments the official G.A.A. stood solid behind the Ban as indicated by the vote for its abolition in 1968, defeated by 220 votes to 80. In the light of that vote it is incredible the transformation in opinion over three years to the extent that it was abolished by acclamation in the 1971 congress.!
Bibliography
The most comprehensive history of the Ban, ‘The Steadfast Rule’ by Brendan Mac Lua, was published by the Cuchulann Press in 1967. It traced the evolution, extension and retention of the Ban from the beginning of the G.A.A. There is a substantial amount about the Ban in Cormac Moore’s, ‘The G.A.A. v Douglas Hyde: The removal of Ireland’s First President as G.A.A. Patron’, which was published by the Collins Press in 2012. A fine account is to be found in Paul Rouse’s ‘Sport and the Politics of Culture: A History of the G.A.A. Ban 1884-1971’, which was his UCD Master’s Thesis. For individual instances of the Ban in operation a survey of contemporary newspapers is very revealing.
There were some very strong supporters of the Ban. Canon Hamilton (1894-1969), who was chairman of the Clare County Board for twenty-five years from 1920 and was responsible for having the 1947 All-Ireland football final played in New York, was a staunch advocate of the Ban, though he held the opposite view for some time after the Treaty, gave a lecture on the Ban, which was produced in booklet form by Club Camán Peil in 1955. In the same publication the Listowel writer, Bryan Mac Mahon, has a supplementary article giving nineteen reasons for the Ban. The most prominent G.A.A. official in support of the Ban was Pádraig Ó Caoimh, who was general secretary of the association from 1929 to 1964. According to Cormac Moore he was ‘an unbending advocate of the Ban . . . who firmly promoted the Irish-Ireland movement and he saw the Ban as the cornerstone of that movement.’ During his time in office he worked hand in hand with Padraig McNamee, who was president form 1938-1943 and who moved with little debate in 1938 that Douglas Hyde had ceased to be a patron of the G.A.A. by his action of going to a soccer match.