They will condemn a referee who "loses" control. They will condemn a referee who is inconsistent.They know full well that, given the game's complexities, referees will make mistakes.

But, if the referee is consistent, they will accept those mistakes as mistakes and not evidence of bias/cheating.Consistency includes treating all people in the same way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The best path to consistency is to apply the law fully and correctly.That said by way of a general comment, we are going to discuss aspects of the lively match between New Zealand and South Africa in windy Wellington.

There were some fairly unedifying scuffles during the game, the sort of action one sees regularly in a nursery school playground. At the end of one of them Marius Joubert was sent to the sin bin for a high tackle and "uppercuts".

The high tackle was clear and nasty. In came Tana Umaga to express his disapproval of Joubert's action on Doug Howlett. Then the scuffling/wrestling ensued.

The commentators on Radio New Zealand described the tackle and the reaction and the conversation between referee and touch judge and then between the referee and Joubert.

At one stage they thought Umaga was in trouble - yellow card, reversed penalty, that sort of thing. They were amused when Umaga was not in trouble.

One suggested that perhaps he had intervened as a peacemaker.The riposte came: "If he was a peacemaker, Mike Tyson is my babysitter!"Umaga deserved a talking to.

1. The tackle - again

We discussed this last week. Let's discuss it again this week, in a repeat of what happened last week with different players.Just before half-time Doug Howlett of New Zealand goes on a mazy run. Marius Joubert of South Africa jumps onto him and brings him to ground, Joubert on top of Howlett.

The first player on the scene is Joe van Niekerk of South Africa. On his feet, he bends down to get the ball from Howlett. Joubert gets smartly to his feet and also tries to get the ball from Howlett.

Reuben Thorne arrives to drive the Springboks away. Greg Somerville arrives to drive the Springboks away. David Hewitt arrives on the side and sort of tumbles over beyond the ball.Ollie le Roux also arrives and tags on behind Van Niekerk and Joubert.

The referee blows his whistle and penalises the Springboks - for coming in at the side.The infringing player concerned could be only Van Niekerk, Joubert or Le Roux. They were the only ones concerned.

In a tackle the law speaks of the tackled player, the tackler and "other players". Other players are neither the tackler nor the tackled player.

Law 15 says: The tackler must get up before playing the ball.
Law 15 also says: 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.

Look at the action. Van Niekerk arrives from behind to play the ball. Le Roux is further behind and not really close enough to contest the ball.That leaves Joubert who seems to be the player singled out.Now he was the tackler. He is the man who brings Howlett to ground while Howlett is carrying the ball and he holds onto Howlett.

That is a tackle.That means that Joubert is not one of "other players". He is allowed to play the ball, provided that he gets to his feet. He does not have to come from behind. He is allowed to play from the side.

But all the visual evidence available suggests that he did come from behind.In any case when Joubert tackled Howlett, Howlett was running across the field. The two landed one on top of the other pretty well parallel to the goal-lines.

That meant that the area of the tackle was a thin, elongated one. Being behind it was not hard.

There was not much of a side to come into.

2. Obstruction

New Zealand kick off with the score at 10-3. The Springboks drive the ball up with a pick and drive. The third person to do so is Willie Meyer of South Africa.

In drives of this sort there is often a breaking up of formations and players find themselves in awkward positions - not by any design, just through the haphazard nature of play.

When he picks up the ball and drives ahead Lawrence Sephaka and Bob Skinstad are ahead of him. Meyer probably does not know that, as he picks up the ball, head down, and forges ahead. He does not forge far as the referee penalises "7 and 8" for obstruction. (7 was nowhere near the action. Sephaka (No.1) was.)

When Meyer was busy forging ahead, Skinstad was the nearest in front of him. Then there was Mark Hammett of New Zealand and then Sephaka behind Hammett.As Meyer came forward, Skinstad stepped aside to let him pass and Hammett closed in on Meyer.

Skinstad did not hamper or change Meyer's path. Skinstad did not hamper Hammett from getting to Meyer. Nor did Sephaka who was barely in the picture.

That Skinstad got out of the way of Meyer and Hammett suggests that he was not there "voluntarily" or deliberately or with obstructive intent.

Andrew Mehrtens goaled the penalty in the swirling wind and made the score 10-6.

The way the law is, if Meyer had bumped into Skinstad, the referee would have ordered a scrum for "accidental off-side".

Because Skinstad was noble - and gentlemanly - enough to get out of the way, he is penalised.

It is perhaps a law which could be revisited.The problem with such an application of the law is that it paves the way for inconsistencies during the match. All incidents of a similar nature should receive similar treatment.

3. The short throw

On about the Springbok 22, Mark Hammett, the New Zealand hooker, throws in to a line-out. There is a bit of shuffling. Then he pops the ball to Mark Robertson, the New Zealand No.8, who runs forward to catch it.

Robertson pops the ball back to Hammett who runs off and scores a try.

Law 21 deals with the line-out. It tells you how the throw-in must be taken.
a. The player taking the throw-in must not step into the field-of-play when the ball is thrown.
b. The ball must be thrown in straight.
c. The ball must travel at least 5m along the line-of-touch before it touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.If any of those things is wrong the referee gives the other side the option of a scrum or another line-out.

Look at c. above. The ball must travel 5m. That does not mean that the catcher's feet must be 5m, from touch. The ball must travel that distance. If he reaches out over the 5m-line to catch the ball, that is no good. The ball must travel the full 5m before it is played.

If Hammett had put either foot into the field of play, that was wrong. If he put both feet into the field-of-play, that was, obviously, wrong.

Blowing for foot-faulting is pedantic, you say. Lots of people say stopping foot-faulting is pedantic. Referees do not like to be accused of being pedantic and do not want to be pedantic in matters which do not affect play.

But if Hammett put two feet into the field of play he had the advantage of not having to pop the ball so far and it put him in an excellent position to receive the return without being in touch.That does affect play.

Whose responsibility if foot-faulting?

Primarily the referee's as he is in charge of all aspects of the game.

But Law 6.4(d):When the ball is thrown in, the touch judge must lower the flag with the following exceptions:

Exception 1: When the player throwing in puts any part of either foot in the field-of-play, the touch judge keeps his flag up.

The other two concern the wrong team throwing in and when a quick throw-in is taken with a inappropriate ball.

4. Hall having a ball

Andrew Mehrtens got the ball just inside his 10m-line. He kicked downfield towards his right-hand touch-line. Dean Hall of South Africa waited for the kick and patted it back into the field of play. Let's say he did not catch the ball, just knocked it back into the field of play.

Let's look at possibilities according to Law 19.
Definition: A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touch line. The plane of the touch-line is the vertical space rising immediately above the touch-line.

If Hall was not in touch and patted it back into the field before it crossed that vertical space thing, then play could go on.

What if the ball did cross that vertical space and Hall was in touch?

Then another definition kicks in: The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touch-line or anything or anyone on or beyond the touch-line.

If Hall was in touch, he would qualify as "anyone on or beyond the touch-line". Then the ball was in touch.

Let's say Hall caught the ball instead of patting it infield.

The Law also has its say: If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.

There is no question of crossing vertical space rising either. So if Hall patted the ball back and it had not crossed vertical space rising, the ball was not in touch. For all other reasons it was in touch.

Then, if it was in touch, it was directly in touch as it had not bounced or touched any player before going into touch. It is hard to justify a line-out to New Zealand at the place where Hall played the ball.

5. 25 seconds

Old-fashioned André Pretorius does not use a kicking tee. He uses sand. Sand possibly takes a bit longer to organise than a tee.How long has a kicker got?

Law 21: If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal.

The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within one minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again.

The referee told Pretorius he had 25 seconds left in which to kick a penalty kick at goal. Suddenly, clearly flustered, Pretorius rushed a fairly straightforward kick and kicked wide.

There was in fact no need for him to rush as 25 seconds is nearly half the time allowed in any case.