Instead they referred to part of the rules on blood substitutions and came up with six subs for Offaly by using an a la carte method of interpretation. My comments obviously hit home with RTE's Marty Morrissey, who attempted to use his column in a local newspaper to address the slight he felt from my piece.

He claimed I was contacted by a colleague of his before The Sunday Game went out on air and that I was not sure of the rule but miraculously seven days later I knew it all.

This is totally incorrect. The true facts (that word again, Marty) are: A person who works regularly on The Sunday Game, presumably the person Marty is referring to (who was not on duty on the evening of the Offaly v Kildare game) contacted me on the telephone after the game and asked me if Offaly had broken a rule with regard to substitutions.

I told him they had not and quoted the rule regarding substitutions as I outlined in this newspaper last Sunday.

This was in the course of a private conversation that I had with this individual who regularly telephones me about rules. However, he did not say on this occasion that he was checking it out on behalf of The Sunday Game.

He did say, however, that he may be talking about it on radio (not RTE radio) at a later stage. I told him he could if he so wished quote me because I was certain that Offaly had not broken a rule.

Having watched The Sunday Game, I telephoned Marty Morrissey the following morning to tell him that Offaly did not break any rule with regard to the substitutions they introduced. In fact I went through the rule with him in great detail and he finished up by saying "Gerry, you have it very clear in your head regarding this Rule.'' However, as an RTE commentator one would expect that he and all the other analysts should know the rules of the game they are describing. If they did they should not have to telephone me to clarify certain issues regarding the rules before they go on air.

This happens regularly but the galling and unethical thing is they then quote what I have told them as if they were the experts in the first place. Who are the self-declared experts here I ask Marty Morrissey, who incidentally took great delight in describing me as a self-declared expert? I have never described myself in those terms, but from all the calls I've taken to clear up issues for RTE over the years, I might be considered by people to have an understanding of the rules. But I have never been credited on the programme for clarifying a rule.

Incidentally, I had a conversation with Marty regarding rules a few years ago in the dressing room in Croke Park before a Leinster Championship game. I pointed out to him that he was incorrectly stating the penalty with regard to a foul of 'dissent' where a player shows dissent with a referee's decision to award a free-kick to the opposing team. Up to then he was saying, "The ball has been advanced 10 yards.'' I told him at the time that the penalty was 13 metres since 1990 and, furthermore, the rulebook had gone metric for the previous 25 years. Thankfully, he has got it right ever since. Commentators should not be using slang or out of date terminology.

I make no apologies for the fact that Marty got it seriously wrong on The Sunday Game by not quoting the full rule. Why did he only quote one third of Rule 1.5(b) of the Rules of Control of the Official Guide Part 2 regarding blood injuries?