Co Board chairman was resistant to change

While Meath clubs did vote overwhelmingly to remove the ban in 1971, the Co Board weren't always of the view that the ban was wrong and from this report in the Meath Chronicle in 1956 it is clear that the then Co Board chairman Fr Tully was very much insistent that the rules of the Association were to be followed and would be enforced.

Fr Tully's report to the 1956 Meath Co Board convention read:

"We all know that a large number of clubs in the county have broken the rule prohibiting the organisation of entertainments at which 'oreign dances are permitted. They may have evaded the letter of the law, but they do not evade the spirit of the law," declared Rev P Tully, CC Moynalty (chairman) in an outspoken address to the delegates assembled in tho CYMS hall Navan, for the annual convention of the -Meath County Board, Gaelic Athletic Association, on Sunday afternoon.

Father Tully, having returned thanks for his unanimous re-election to the position of chairman said: "Last year I spoke about "the ban". We saw what "foreign' games were, namely, rugby, soccer, hockey and cricket. We saw that they were called "foreign" because they were fostered by and imposed on the Irish people by the foreign forces in power in this country; they were imposed in the hope of making us forget our native games and customs. We saw that rule 26 was tabled by Meath County Board, and that it was prompted by the treatment experienced by our own people here in Meath at the hands af foreign forces.

Now let us leave our history aside for the moment, and let us look at the rules themselves. The rules of tho Association have been made by the members of the Association — by the ordinary club members and club delegates - and not by the officers of the County Boards, or Provincial Councils or Central Council. A rule cannot be made at congress unless it has been tabled and passed at a County Board convention, and only the clubs can do that. Individuals, even though they are officers of the County Board, cannot do so. So the rules are made by clubs.

Secondly, the Association does not compel anyone to be a member. If you wish to be a member, it does insist that you observe the rules. So if you wish to be a member you take upon yourself, of your own free choice, to observe the rules. We wish to have us many members as possible, but we also wish that the rules be observed.

Now apply the rules we have been talking about to ourselves, ie. rules 20, 27, 28, 29 and 30. Take rule 20 — clubs organising entertainments at which foreign dances are permitted. We all know that a large number of clubs in the county have broken that rule. Many have evaded the letter of the law by calling their club a "supporters' club." Some left no doubt as to what the 'supporters' club was, because they called it a GF or H Supporters' Club. At least one club is not satisfied with advertising a "dance"; they have to call it a "Ball." Now I know tho offenders defence quite well "How are we going to get money unless we run dances?" I'm not going to 'discuss that question; all I'm concerned with at the moment is that that defence is no defeuce. You may insist on evading the letter of the law, but you do not evade the spirit of the law, and you are pushing yourselves into a position of having a rule made to cover your offence, or having the present rule amended so as to cover it. The rule against the playing of foreign games; the rule against attending such both within and without the county; the rule against attendance at dances promoted by foreign games organisations — all these have been broken.

You may say to me: "What are you doing about it?" "What about your vigilance committee?" A vigilance committee is a solution, but it is only a partial solution. We cannot have "vigilantes" here, there and everywhere. The solution lies with members themselves.

The members of our Association are men — honourable men — and we officers of the Association want to treat you in an honourable way. We do not want to be spying on you or doing the policeman on you. We want you to act in an honourable way, and let you yourselves remove the necessity for a vigilance committee. Why? There are still very good reasons for keeping the rules I have mentioned.

Our country has been too long under foreign domination; too much of it is still, and there will be too much of it as long as there is one square yard of it. Remember 1916. This is the fortieth anniversary. Remember that when the Rising was suppressed there was not a GAA Club or Co Board in Ireland which had not some of its best inside the barbed wire fences of the internment camps. Foreign domination continued not only territorially but by cunning and insidious propaganda through the radio and films — how often is the dominating power presented to us as a liberating champion?

My remarks may sound harsh and sarcastic. I certainly do not wish to bo either- My job is to help you, and to further the interests of the Association, and that is why I make these remarks.

I appeal to yourselves, to your honour, to keep these rules about which I have been talking. I appeal to you to do so so that I or the Co Board will not have to inflict penalties. We don't want to do that. We don't want to treat you as criminals, or as delinquents, or as bold little schoolboys. We want to treat you as men, as honourable men and as honourable Irishmen.

Fr Tully's speech was greeted with applause.

In 1964 a proposal to put forward a motion to Congress was rejected by the Meath Co Board convention by 53 votes to 37. The report in the Meath Chronicle read:

The meeting rejected a motion tabled by Colmcille Gaels (Kells) recommending to congress that the ban on foreign games be removed. Mr BJ Caffrey (Colmcille Gaels), proposing the resolution, said the rule was being abused on all sides. There were delegates present who would vote against his proposal and, at the same time, take no action against members of their clubs who played soccer and rugby until the vigilance committee reported the offenders. Clubs should be manly enough to leave such players on the sideline and not wait for the vigilance committee to report the matter. He advocated the removal of the ban and as a substitute put the onus on clubs to enforce their own ban on young fellows who were fond of rugby and soccer and regarded the playing of rugby as a social uplift. "Either scrap the ban or enforce it strictly," he added.

Mr PJ Conway (Longwood) opposing the motion, said it was galling to listen to people asking to have the rule scrapped or modified, and the Gaels of Meath would not tolerate such a move. 'Were it not for the ban the GAA would not enjoy the healthy position it was in today.'

Mr P Doyle (Drumree) supported the previous speaker and called for a rigid enforcement of the rule.

Mr J McDermott (Curraha), endorsing the motion, appealed to the delegates to face facts and said it was common knowledge that the ban was being violated on all sides. Only a hypocrite would deny it was being broken on the field and in the dance halls.

Mr P McDermott (O'Mahonys) said the time had come to remove the ban. 'It was necessary at one stage of our history but not so today. If the GAA men in the Six Counties had their way it would be abolished.'

Mr R Snow (Kilberry) said it would be against the national spirit to brush the ban aside. When people became members of the GAA they were asked to observe rules and regulations and if they did not wish to abide by them they could go elsewhere. If the ban was removed footballers and hurlers would be permitted to play soccer, rugby and other games with the result that many of the association's clubs might find it difficult at times to field a full team. The GAA was an expression of our individuality as a nation while rugby, soccer, etc., were imposed on the people by foreigners down the years.

Replying to the debate, Mr Caffrey said that men died to get freedom for Ireland and its people but the imposition of bans was a violation of what those patriots had achieved.

When the motion was declared lost, Mr Caffrey said it had not the support of all the members of his club. In fact some of the Kells delegates had just voted against it.