Rugby football has a set of Laws. These Laws are drawn up by the International Rugby Board.

The Laws of the Game are one. There is no second set - just one set of laws.

There are no southern hemisphere Laws.
There are no northern hemisphere Laws.

There are no Wayne Erickson Laws.
There are no Paul Honiss Laws.
There are no André Watson Laws.
There are no Stuart Dickinson Laws.
There are no Jonathan Kaplan Laws.
There are no Steve Lander Laws.

There is only one set of Laws.

These Laws are what makes rugby football different from all other games. They are the constitution and the soul of the game.

It's worthwhile to read what the Laws of the game say about the Law of the Game:

The Laws of the Game, including the Standard Set of Variations for Under-19 Rugby, are complete and contain all that is necessary to enable the game to be played correctly and fairly.

There is one set of Laws. Those Laws are complete. They have increasingly been written in user-friendly language. Increasingly, moves have been made to get rid of anomalies and to settle doubts. There should be one way of applying these Laws.

There is no room for "interpretation". There should be no room for local variations and "rulings".

There should be Laws and the application of those Laws - and that should be it.

More and more the IRB has been getting referees for all sports of top tournaments together beforehand to ensure as uniform an application of the law as is possible.

Uniform application = consistency.

We mentioned the word last week. We should mention it again. It is the repeated cry of the players and the coaches. "All we ask is consistency," they say.

At the top level, where we have the top players, the top coaches, the top administrators and the top levels, there should be the highest level of consistency. Even allowing for human fallibility and personality there should be a striving for consistency.

This consistency should be from game to game and within a game.

There is no reason why a referee should apply the law differently to different teams or why one referee's application should differ from another - save only in the art of managing men and allowing advantage.

But when we are talking of top players coached by top coaches and refereed by top referees even here the differences should be minimal.

If there is perceived inconsistency there is also perceived bias. A persecution complex can develop.

Let's look at some issues, real or perceived. Let's look at consistency in a match and from match to match.

1. Tackle consistency:

Let's look at two incidents with consistency in mind.

a. There is no off-side line at a tackle.

b. There is a way of playing at the tackle:

b.1 The tackled player must make the ball available immediately.
b.2 The tackler must be on his feet to play.
b.3 Other players must come from behind the tackle on their side.

Coming from behind does not apply to the tackled player or the tackle. They are allowed to play when they are on their feet.

A player is tackled if he is held and brought to ground. The tackler does not have to go to ground.

Stephen Larkham of Australia runs. He runs at James Dalton of South Africa, who tackles him at the same time as André Pretorius of South Africa tackles Larkham. Dalton does not go to ground. He is on his feet. He plays the ball.

The referee penalises Dalton and says: "No.2. Clear tackle. Coming from the wrong side. Come round."

If Dalton had been the tackler, which he seemed to be, he did not have to "come round". He was allowed to play the ball.

The business of "coming in at the side" is often difficult to deterimine from television and the error of parallax that our schoolmasters tried to teach us.

Look in the second half at a penalty against Joe van Niekerk for coming in at the side when the viewer's angle may suggest that he did play from behind.

This one happened in the first half.

Johannes Conradie breaks sharply down his left touchline. Stephen Larkham dives after him, tackles him and brings him to ground.

This has happened when Chris Latham, coming across goes into Conradie's side, his left leg at about Conradie's waist as he and Larkham lie stretched out parallel to the touchline.

There is no possibility of an error of parallax in seeing this. Latham clearly comes in at the side. Penalty.

He drops on Conradie who is on the ground. Penalty.

Lying there Latham then plays the ball with his hand. Penalty.

The upshot was a line-out to Australia.

This happened in fairly open country, with not too many hindrances to match officials' view.

The tackle is the biggest problem for ther Laws of the Game. What about having an off-side line at a tackle and allowing players on their feet to attempt to get the ball back with their hands, ruck or no imaginary ruck?

2. Consistency from match to match:

We have, remember, the world's best in action - the best players, the best referees.

New Zealand throw in at a line-out. New Zealand No.8 comes round and takes the ball at the front of the line-out. The ball does not travel 5m. New Zealand score a try.

South Africa throw in at a line-out. South Africa No.8 comes round and takes the ball at the front of the line-out. The ball does not travel 5m. The referee awards a free-kick against South Africa.

The second decision was the right one, but such inconsistency is liable to create a persecution complex in a team. After all the two incidents happened only a week apart and at the highest level.

Perhaps it was not inconsistency, just error.

One thing is certain - we cannot make consistency an excuse for perpetuating error.

3. Consistency amongst authorities:

A referee makes thousands of decisions in a match - decisions to stop play, decisions to let play go on, decisions about advantage, decisions about what path to run, decisions about what to say, how to manage, how to deal with a situation. And he has to do so at speed in the heat of battle with emotionally charged people milling about.

The people in charge of citings have no such pressures. They can watch things calmly, over and over, in slow motion.

Just look at the whole brawl and decide about consistency. It has been discussed over and over and blame has been apportioned. It’s usually the same old story that your side was wrong and mine angelic.

At the risk of rehashing yet again,. let's go over it as best we can observe it from the single television angle made public, though one imagines other angles were available.

Werner Greeff of South Africa kicks a high ball, which drops inside the Australia 22. Chris Latham leaps up to get it. He catches the ball and calls for a mark. He is coming down when Greeff tackles him.

The referee blows his whistle and shows a free-kick for a mark. He has his right arm up and bent to show the free-kick. That is an important decision in terms of what happened later on. The referee did not penalise Greeff for an air tackle. He awarded a mark to Latham for a fair catch.

Latham is hurt in the tackle.

Greeff is lying on the ground, on his stomach.

George Gregan, the Australian captain, sinks his knees onto Greeff.

The nearest Springbok is James Dalton who sees what Gregan does and pushes him away.

Three Wallabies are standing around Dalton - Owen Finegan, Jeremy Paul and Toutai Kefu. There is an amount of muted belligerence in their standing there, but so far anything that was likely to happen was a bit of push and pull.

Then Skinstad arrives with speed and aggression. He appears to strike out at Paul.

At this stage fighting breaks out.

Faan Rautenbach arrives with zest and punches Ben Tune.

The battle breaks into two groups of warriors - one near Corné Krige, who earlier appeared to be no more than a bystander, and one around Rautenbach who is set upon by Paul, Justin Harrison and Stephen Larkham.

In the end three players are sent to the sin bin - Greeff, Harrison and Paul.

The touch judge repeated that the cause of the fight was that Greeff had "attacked" a player in the air. (Attacked is an emotional word.) The other touch judge confirmed that Harrison and Paul had repeatedly punched Rautenbach.

The referee sent Greeff, Harrison and Paul to the sin bin - working on the touch judges' opinions.

A couple of points should be made:

The responsibility for such decisions rests with the referee, not the touch judges.

Clearly the referee had not thought that Greeff had "attacked" the player in the air, for he was going to give a free-kick. And the referee was much, much closer to the action than the touch judge who was on the far touchline.

Secondly the referee, who was infield, may have had a better view of the action around Rautenbach than the touch judge.

The responsibility rested with the referee, who would have been wise to get the touch judges' opinions, but not have them make the full decision for him.

That's all heat of the moment stuff, and not really our main concern. But what about the citings?

The previous week Corné Krige had been cited on a matter that was dismissed. It was claimed that he had bitten Scott Robertson. The "bitten" player said he was not bitten and had no marks to suggest that he had been. The "bitten" player's nearest team-mate said that there was no biting. The visual evidence was flimsy.

In dismissing the citing the disciplinary committee suggested that there had been insufficient evidence to punish the player.

Taking that as a standard, one wonders why there was after the Gabba brawl no citing, at least of Gregan and Skinstad.

Last year - top game, top officials - David Giffin was cited for putting an elbow into Robbie Fleck's face. He was suspended for three weeks. It did not look anything like as violent as some of the actions which happened at the Gabba, which carried nothing like the penalty. Just four yellow cards - two for this side and two for that side.

Do visitors get more disciplinary cards than home players?

4. Retaliation:

How do we deal with outbreaks of foul play, Suddenly we seem in danger of returning to the age of the flare-up, of safety in numbers, of the 99-call.

Let's start with retaliation.

I punch you. You punch me. Who gets penalised?
I tackle you high. Your mate punches me. Who gets penalised?

Certainly the cause is serious. But also the idea of taking the law into your own hands is serious.

It would seem in the two questions that both players in the wrong need to be dealt with and possibly given disciplinary cards, red or yellow. But the instigator should be penalised.

But what happens if the "instigator's" instigatory action did not warrant a penalty?

Then surely the player who acts against him is the one to be penalised

In a sense it brings us back to Greeff. He was given a yellow card because he started the fighting. But did he?

Imagine if his tackle had been legitimate but somebody took objection to it and fighting broke out.

Clearly, he would not be regarded as the guilty party.

5. Kick-offs:

We need to be clear about kick-offs. Players need to be clear about kick-offs.

André Pretorius kicks his drop-kick to restart after a New Zealand score. He kicks high into the Wellington wind. The ball arches back and lands some 5m over the half-way line.

The referee calls play on.

The players are bemused.

If the ball had travelled 10m through the air, it did not matter that it was blown back. The referee was right to call play on.

Matthew Burke kicks off after a Springbok score. The ball does not seem to be travelling 10m. It lands some 6m over the halfway line.

The wallabies do not play it. The Springboks do not play it. The ball bounces into touch about 11m over the halfway line.

The Wallabies knew their laws. They knew that if they had played it the referee would have given the Springboks the option of a kick again or a scrum.

The Springboks knew their laws. They knew that if they had stepped forward and played the ball,. the Wallabies could have laid into them and play would have gone on.

Did they all know all that?

6. Time, gentlemen:

The Wallabies were on the attack. Time was up. The referee penalised the Springboks about 5m from their line.

George Gregan, the wallaby captain, in search of a try which would have given his side a bonus point and denied the Springboks one, asked the referee if he could kick the ball out and have the line-out.

He could kick the ball out but then time would be up.

Could he have a scrum?

Yes.

But isn't time then up?

A penalty must be taken. It may be taken in two ways - with a kick or by having a scrum.

The referee was quite right in allowing the scrum, which in fact led to the try.