It poured with rain at cold Jade Stadium on Saturday evening when the All Blacks and the Wallabies met in the first Tri-Nations/Bledisloe Cup match of the year.

It was a match of high intensity, demanding high levels of concentration - from players and referee. The refereeing was also an object lesson in match management, and as a result the match bustled along and the manners close to faultless.

Management is not about a lot of words. But it is about clear communication in terms of law and a certain briskness that gets the game going: "Off-side Black Seven. Back 10, please. Play."

It was also good to see a referee take responsibility for what happened in the match without referring unnecessarily to touch judges.

That said, there are some things worth talking about, especially around the tackle. It is here that we are going to make a little suggestion, which may well be worth discussion.

But first the penalty try.

1. "Penalty try"

Stephen Larkham charged down a slowly-taken left-footed kick by Aaron Mauger. Daniel Herbert picked up the ball with consummate skill in the mucky conditions. He passed left to Jeremy Paul who was steaming up on his inside.

Before Paul go the ball, Mark Robinson, the All Black centre, tackled him and the ball shot forward.

The referee called Robinson over and said the following:

"The anticipation was incorrect. You tackled him without the ball. He was in a potential try-scoring situation.

"You're gone for ten."

Here ended Robinson's match.

Penalty try?

Law 9: If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded between the goal posts.

Not possibly, not potential - probably. Paul may quite possibly have scored, getting past Mauger and Justin Marshall to do so. There was no probability of a try.

It is worth noting that the only reason for awarding a penalty try is if the foul play, which includes tackling a player who does not have the ball, prevents a probable try from being scored.

It is not for repeated infringements, not for a "professional foul" in itself.

2. Tackles

Look at two incidents concerning Richard McCaw, the splendid All Black flank.

a. From a free kick at a scrum, the Wallabies take a tapped kick and Toutai Kefu charges off at an angle. Andrew Merhtens sort of gets in the way but McCaw dives low, gets Kefu around the ankles and brings the big man thumping to ground.

That leaves McCaw stretched out on the ground behind Kefu. In a flash lithe McCaw is up and moves to play the ball.

Is McCaw allowed to go directly to the ball? Or is he required to go around the prone Kefu and come to the ball from his own side?

Kefu was tackled, i.e. held and brought to ground. McCaw then released him, got to his feet and went to play the ball.

Because he was the tackler he is allowed to play the ball. The requirement that players come from behind the tackle to play the ball applies to the players not involved in the tackle - "other players" in the law:

At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal-line.

Hands in a ruck? There was no ruck when McCaw played the ball - just Kefu on the ground and McCaw on his feet.

b. The Wallabies attack thriough several phases. Jeremy Paul gets the ball and turns to go ahead. Greg Somerville, the All Black prop is in his way, but somehow Paul squirms under Somerville's arm, and falls to the ground.

At no time is he held.

McCaw sweeps in to play the ball.

May he do so? Is he allowed to go directly to the ball? Or is he required to go around the prone Kefu and come to the ball from his won side?

Paul was not tackled - i.e. held and brought to ground. There was thus no need whatsoever for McCaw to come from behind. He was allowed to play the ball.

Suggestion

We have set the incidents out in their bare bones and slowly because we had many advantages that the referee did not have - e.g. replays and slow motion. For the referee the action happens once and at desperate speed and he has only a fragment of a second to decide.

Would it not be better to make his job easier and at the same time giving the players greater confidence at tackle time where most of the match's penalties occur?

Let's think about this:

a. Whenever a player (or players) is on the ground with/near the ball, all players must approach the ball from their side of the players at the ball.

b. Players on their feet may use their hands to get the ball back whenever there is a player (players) on the ground with/near the ball.

c. A player (players) on the ground with/near the ball must let players on their feet get the ball.

This makes the action the same at all similar situations. There is no need for spurious (or even valid) calls of ruck.

There is no need to work out what sort of situation it is for immediate play - a tackle, a ruck, a player lying on the ground.

(The ruck will still create off-side lines and rucking remains a valid action.)

This will make players more confident and the referee's job more possible.

To have the same reaction to similar situations will make for greater consistency.

3. Down from a dizzy height

Nathan Sharpe of Australia goes high in the line-out with help from supporting players. Down he comes from his Olympian height, crashing to the ground.

Law 19.8:

Lowering a player. Players who support a jumping team-mate must lower that player to the ground as soon as the ball has been won by a player of either team.

The sanction for failing to do this is a free kick.

If Sharpe had been pulled down by a New Zealander, then it would have been a penalty kick. Later there would be a penalty to the Wallabies when Justin Harrison fell to the ground at a line-out.