Let's be honest about this, we've all seen worse. But that doesn't make what happened at Semple Stadium last Sunday right. Absolutely not. What on one level was little more than a logistical error that suddenly got out of hand and was over almost as soon as it started was, on another level, a sordid incident that held a mirror up to a number of continuing failings on the part of the GAA.

One very obvious failing was the unwillingness by many people to acknowledge that this was a hideous own-goal for hurling and the GAA. Reality matters less than perception, and the perception to emerge from Semple Stadium was that hurling is a game for wild men. Not true, but clearly not good for the sport's image. Also, county loyalties really do matter in the GAA. Anthony Daly, a Clareman, and Donal O'Grady, a Corkman, were probably two of the least suitable men The Sunday Game could have had commenting on the row and its implications on this occasion.

As for the excuse that the bystanding children "weren't affected": please! This is self-delusion of a high order. Any teacher or parent will tell you that it isn't good for children to be watching fellas flaking the heads off one another, even if the flaking was handbags. The presence of children is exactly the reason why the association must take action . . . and, what's more, must be seen to take action. No sporting organisation in the world could wash its hands of an episode like this. However, if Gerald McCarthy and Cork weren't given a time at which to run onto the pitch, as they claim, then serious questions will arise when it comes to the appeals process.

Another failing connected to last Sunday's events is the obsession with hyping teams up to the eyeballs in the dressing room beforehand. It's been an association tradition since time immemorial. Break a hurley or two off the table, let rip with a few curses about the other crowd, take the skin off the walls, then send the team running out of the place like wild animals.

It's the way our forefathers operated, so why shouldn't we? That sketch by D'Unbelievables about how the players had to be ready to take the head off their opponents because otherwise they'd never make it "when they're under-14s next year" was so good because it came so close to the bone.

Thing is, hurling and football don't need to work that way any more. It should be about the message, not the messenger. Sport has moved on.

Sports psychology has moved in, much as some managers may dismiss it as voodoo. In truth, sports psychology is really nothing more than basic common sense. And basic common sense says that if you send out a bunch of wild animals 20 minutes before throw-in, they'll have wasted their nervous energy by the time the match begins.

Working players into a frenzy prior to a game continues to be a forte. Controlled aggression, not uncontrolled aggression, should be the aim. To be fair, we're not unique in that regard.

Looking at the recent TV documentary on the Irish rugby team, it was intriguing to see the amount of dressing-room effing and blinding done by Eddie O'Sullivan and Paul O'Connell. I'd assumed that approach in rugby had gone out with the Ark, or at any rate with amateurism.

Speaking from a sports psychology viewpoint, an area in which I have some qualifications and a deep interest, an excellent team led by a splendid manager squandered a first Grand Slam for Ireland since 1948 because they lost their heads at a critical moment. We could have been champions of Europe. Controlled aggression and proper concentration would have seen Ireland win the French restart at Croke Park and close out the game. The season was ruined because they failed to stay calm when it mattered most. What a shame.

We can't talk about Semple Stadium seven days ago without also talking about O'Connor Park in Tullamore, where Offaly and Laois met in the Leinster championship quarter-final. There was a shemozzle prior to the throw-in there too, a far less serious shemozzle than the one in Thurles. The referee brandished a couple of yellow cards and that was that. End of story.

Fair enough, except that whereas the Thurles flashpoint was unique, the Tullamore flashpoint was of a kind that occurs every weekend in every county in every grade. What's more, we seem perfectly happy to let it occur.

The last person to be blamed is the ref.

He has more than enough on his plate as it is when he calls the players in for the throw-in. He has to check his umpires are at their stations. He has to check his linesmen are in place. He's looking at his watch. To top it all, he has four lads pushing and jostling in front of him, wired to the moon.

No grasp of sports psychology is required to understand the mentality of the respective midfielders at a throw-in.

You're there alongside your man. He nudges you. You nudge him back . . . of course you nudge him back, because if TODAY Leinster SFC first round second replay LOUTH v WICKLOW Croke Park, 2.10 Leinster SFC quarter-final MEATH v DUBLIN Croke Park, 4.00 TV Munster SFC semi-finals WATERFORD v KERRY Dungarvan, 2.00 TV CORK v TIPPERARY Gaelic Grounds, 3.30 Ulster SFC quarter-final ANTRIM v DERRY Casement Park, 4.15 Ulster SHC final ANTRIM v DOWN Casement Park, 2.15 SATURDAY, 9 JUNE Leinster SHC semi-final DUBLIN vWEXFORD Nowlan Park, 7.00 SUNDAY, 10 JUNE Munster SHC semi-final LIMERICK v TIPPERARY Gaelic Grounds, 2.00 TV Leinster SHC semi-final OFFALY v KILKENNY Portlaoise, 4.00 TV Ulster SFC quarter-final MONAGHAN v DOWN Newry, 3.30 Leinster SFC quarter-final CARLOW v OFFALY Portlaoise, 2.10 INCOMING you don't you're handing him the psychological advantage straightaway, you're waving the white flag without firing a shot. So yes, you nudge him back.

It's a foolproof recipe for trouble.

Some people object to the throw-in in hurling and have called for matches to be started by way of a puckout. I'm not one of them; anyway, the puckout experiment was tried in the National League a few years back and it didn't work. It's as though hurling folk need the game to begin with, literally, the clash of the ash in the middle of the field. Also, seeing that throw-ins take place during the course of a match in cases where the officials aren't sure which team got the last touch to a ball that went out over the sideline, it makes little sense to do away with them at the start of the same match.

Our method of starting a game can be refined without sanitising it. Paudie Butler and I exchanged suggestions during the week. How about this? Cut the number of players at the throw-in from four to two. When you think about it, the two lads at the back are irrelevant. In fact, they're a positive danger; no valid grounds exist for having them there. So get rid of them and place the remaining two midfielders five metres either side of midfield, coming onto the throw-in from their respective sides. Simple.

Thurles was bad. It'll be far worse if we don't learn quickly from it.