It is not a new phenomenon. What's new is the vociferous complaining by high-profile people, such as international coaches and, this week, an international player.

Much of it has to do with perspective. At rugby matches people pick sides. Players, spectators, coaches, administrators - they are all there wanting their side to win. Listen to media commentators. They, too, back sides. (Oh, for unattached commentators!) The only people not wanting a side to win are the referees. The other people involved frequently do not understand this about referees.

But the referees, apart from being most likely the only impartial people in the place, are also the ones who probably know the laws best.

That means that much of the criticism comes from those who are biased and, relatively speaking, ignorant.

This does not mean to say that referees are never wrong. Not at all. They know, as every sensible person knows, that it is impossible for a human being to do anything perfectly, let alone referee a rugby match with its multitudinous complexities.

We shall start with a simple one, which was the cause of some argument when Australia played New Zealand in Sydney this weekend past.

1. Late-tackle mark

Ben Tune of Australia runs down the right touch-line as Australia attack. He kicks ahead into the New Zealand 22. When he kicks he is about one metre in from touch.

After Tune has kicked Chris Jack tackles him.

The ball bounces about four metres in from touch.

The referee waits for advantage then penalises Jack. He talks to Jack and then goes 15 metres in from touch - something like 11 metres in from where the ball bounced.

The All Blacks query this. After all it is easier to kick a penalty goal from 15 metres in from touch than from four metres in from touch.

Matthew Burke goals the penalty.

Law 10.4 (m), which deals with late-charging the kicker:

Penalty: The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement or where the ball lands.

Then it defines "where the ball lands": If the ball lands in touch, the mark for the optional penalty kick is on the 15-metre line in line with where it went into touch. If the ball lands within 15 metres of the touchline, the mark is on the 15-metre line opposite where it lands.

That is what the correct referee did.

It is surprising that top international players should query that. It's not new law.

It's silly when a top international player, who has shown such ignorance of the law, then publicly criticises the referee for his refereeing of the match. One wonders what basis he has for criticism.

2. Tackle roulette

Last week we discussed the complexities of a post-tackle action by James Dalton of South Africa. He was one of a two-man tackle on Stephen Larkham, stayed on his feet and played the ball without retreating behind the tackle. He was penalised.

This week there was a similar case.

The All Blacks attack the Wallabies in waves. Christian Cullen runs at an angle to his right. Stirling Mortlock and Matthew Burke of Australia grab him. Cullen goes to ground. Mortlock and Burke stay on their feet.

Because the ball-carrier was held and while held went to ground, it was a tackle.

There is no off-side line at the tackle.

Cullen is between Mortlock and Burke. Burke, bending, has his back to Cullen and is on the All Black side of Cullen. Burke plays the ball. Play goes on and the Wallabies clear.

One week it's a penalty; the next week it's play on.

Cook Islands play Scotland at the Commonwealth Sevens in Manchester.

A Scottish player with a Number 3 on his back, tackles a Cook Islander. In the tackle he falls past the Cook Islander. The Cook Islander lying on the ground pushes the ball back to his side. Scotland No.3 stands up and gathers the ball.

He is penalised and told to come in from behind.

Law 15 on the tackle talks of three groups of players at the tackle.

a. The tackled player, who will be the ball carrier, brought to ground while held by an opponent.
b. The tackler - he who brings the ball carrier to ground.
c. Other players - those not tackled or tackling.

The tackled player is allowed to play the ball once he is back on his feet.
The tackler is allowed to play the ball when he is in his feet.
Other players must come from behind the tackle to play the ball.

The tackled player and the tackler do not need to come from behind the tackle to play the ball.

That suggests that Dalton, Burke and Scotland 3 were all OK.

But that would be too simple would it not? In the definition we read: Any opponents of the tackled player who go to ground are known as tacklers.

That would suggest that Dalton, Mortlock and Burke are not tacklers. To be tacklers, it seems, they would have to be on the ground.

"Brought to ground" is defined for ball-carriers - on one knee or both knees or sitting on the ground or on top of another player on the ground. But there is no similar definition for a tackler.

Take a line through the ball-carrier and perhaps if the tackler (Dalton or Burke) would have had a knee on the ground and then he could legitimately have played the ball - legitimately within the fuzzy working of the law and, mercifully, legitimately within commonsense. After all Dalton and Burke are not joining the tackle. They are making the tackle a tackle. They should be allowed to play as players within the tackle.

No similar legalistic excuse exists for penalising Scotland No.3.

It is worth saying that in all of these cases we have international players and international referees.

Most rugby players are not internationals and most rugby referees are not internationals. If we can't get it right at the top, what hope is there for the fair and consistent application of the laws of rugby football?

Or are we happy that the tackle should remain a gambler's chance - tackle-roulette?

Can we not simplify the tackle laws so that players can play with greater confidence and the referees referee with greater competence - and without having a finish to a match such as we had on Saturday when a player, on the field for such a short time, is penalised and possibly feels the guilt of losing such an important match.

3. Five metres - yet again

Again we are talking about international players in international matches refereed by international referees.

In Christchurch a throw-in at a line-out does not go in five metres because a player at the front plays it before it has travelled five metres. Play goes on.

In Sydney a throw-in at a line-out does not go in five metres because a player at the front plays it before it has travelled five metres. A free-kick is awarded.

In Manchester a throw-in at a line-out does not go in five metres because a player at the front plays it before it has travelled five metres. A penalty is awarded.

All of this happens in the space of three weeks!

What hope have players and spectators got if this happens.

(In case there is any doubt, the Sydney decision was the right one!)

4. Penalty count

The television commentators mentioned the penalty count several times and seemed to imply that Australia were being hard done by.

In fact Australia were penalised 14 times; New Zealand were penalised 10 times. That does not seem a remarkably great difference, but if you are intent on supporting a team, the perception can be that it is greater.

Let's, as a matter of interest, look at the penalty (not free-kick) counts this year, as a number of times a team was penalised. In only two cases is the difference significantly different:

New Zealand vs Italy: 9-14
South Africa vs Wales: 17-15
New Zealand vs Ireland: 11-6
South Africa vs Wales: 12-16
Argentina vs France: 10-9
New Zealand vs Ireland: 9-15
Argentina vs England, 13-13
Australia vs France, 12-17
Australia vs France, 8-9
South Africa vs Argentina: 18-8
South Africa vs Samoa: 10-16
New Zealand vs Australia: 9-11
New Zealand vs South Africa: 7-10
Australia vs South Africa: 8-20
Australia vs News Zealand: 10-14

5. Concentration

Just a little thing about concentration.

Commonwealth Sevens - Manchester - international players, international referees.

Kenya play Tonga in a Plate decider.

Tonga kick-off to restart the match, and the ball does not travel 10m. That means that in Sevens it is a free-kick to the Kenyans.

They come running up from their deep position while their opponents drop back.

The referees in Sevens, for some reason which is not entirely clear, run 10m ahead of kicks such as these and penalties/free-kicks. (The reason for doing so is unclear as Sevens is such an open game - far less player clutter. It has so much passing which is best ruled from in line with the passer, rather than 10m ahead.)

The referee darts off 10 to the Tongan 10m-line.

The Kenyan team get the ball from the touch-line and sling it to their kicker. The kicker, used to taking the kick where the referee is standing, runs to the referee. There he takes a tap kick and passes the ball. But the referee was on the Tongan 10m-line. Play went on and Kenya scored a try.

When the referee realises what happened, he will kick himself. It happens when concentration lapses.

Let's at the same time nail a point we made last week. Consistency does not consist in consistently repeating the same error. Having allowed that kick, it would not serve the game for the referee (and all subsequent referees) to allow such a restart!

6. Knock-on off knee

Matthew Burke has the ball and charges ahead at Andrew Mehrtens who clings to him. Aaron Mauger and Richard McCaw also cling to Burke who goes to ground awkwardly. Mortlock comes into help Burke and the five players tumble about.

As Burke rolls over in this tumble, he loses the ball. It goes forward. It may strike his knee in the act of going forward.

Is it a knock-on?

Definition: A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

Burke lost possession of the ball and it went forward. Ergo, a knock-on.

7. Don't guess

There were 80,000 people in the ground. The majority of them were supporting the Wallabies. Loots of them booed loudly because the referee did not blow his whistle.

It is a moment worth talking about.

Caleb Ralph is bundled out at the corner. The Wallabies win the line-out. Chris Latham tries to run it out and is tackle a few metres from the line but the Wallabies win the ball.

This is close to the goalline. The referee needs to be there because there are All Blacks in the starting blocks wanting to head for Stephen Larkham who looks the likely recipient of the ball. Larkham is deep in his in-goal are. The referee needs to be close.

The ball comes to Larkham, who kicks downfield.

Caleb Ralph catches the ball on the Wallaby 10m-line. Ralph passes to Cullen, then Cullen passes back to Ralph. It is a short pass.

The referee does not blow for a forward pass. Many in the crowd believe the pass is forward and are cross with the referee, so they boo.

The referee says: "Can't see. Play on. Couldn't see."

He throws up his arms in that play-on gesture and the players play.

Some points:

a. Don't guess. Don't even be tempted to guess.
b. Manage uncertainty with as much certainty as possible.
c. If you are a player, play to the whistle. That's an ancient rugby adage.

There used to be a clause in the Laws of the Game, not many years ago, which said that if a referee had "any doubt" about whether a pass was forward or not, he was not to blow his whistle.

It's not a bad idea. What is a bad idea is to guess.