After all the other drama involving the referee, it seems trivial to discuss points of law, rather like the joke question for the wife of recently assassinated Abraham Lincoln: "Apart from that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs Lincoln?" But we shall discuss the two incidents, partly because there has been so much talk about them.

The first involved a penalty try, the second a penalty when a try seemed inevitable.

The penalty try followed a high tackle.

On the score of high tackles, the Springboks have played seven Tests this year. They have been penalised seven times for high tackles. Six of those seven were by centres. Two of them were on Saturday and cost the Springboks dearly - 10 points in all. In six Tests at about this time New Zealand were not guilty of a single high tackle. In six Tests, if one includes the match against New Zealand Maori, Australia were guilty of three high tackles.

1. The penalty try

New Zealand attack at speed. A long reverse pass by Justin Marshall sends them off to the left where Tana Umaga heads for the line at an angle. The Springbok centres, De Wet Barry and Marius Joubert, head for him with determination as he nears the line.

Marius Joubert's tackle is near the waist, De Wet Barry's above the neck.

Both tackle him and Umaga is stopped dead a metre or two from the line. A post-tackle contest for the ball comes to nothing and the referee awards a penalty try - the second against the Springboks this year, the fourth in its history of Test rugby.

A penalty try for a high tackle?

Let's go quickly to the Laws of the Game.

Law 9: Penalty Try 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.

Law 10 deals with foul play in several aspects. One aspect deals with dangerous play and misconduct. Under that heading is dangerous tackling. The law states the following:

(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play. All forms of dangerous tackling must be punished severely. A player who commits this type of foul must be sent off. Advantage may be played, but if the offence prevents a probable try, a penalty try must be awarded.

A high tackle is dangerous play. Dangerous tackling is foul play. If foul play stops a probable try from being scored, the referee must award a penalty try.

In the case of Tana Umaga, the referee clearly decided that the tackle was high and that it stopped a probable try from being scored.

The argument that there was no case for a probable try because Barry could have tackled low and stopped the try from being scored - as Werner Greeff had done on Andrew Mehrtens at the cornerflag. It does not hold water because Barry did not tackle low.

The referee had only two things to worry about:
Was Barry's tackle high?
Did that tackle probably stop Umaga from scoring a try?

If the answer is "Yes" both times, then the referee must award a penalty try.

Presumably the referee believed that Marius Joubert's tackle on Umaga was not enough to prevent the scoring of a probable try - if indeed he had time to weigh up the balance of probability.

2. Decoy Dalton

The Springboks are down 12-7 and attack this way and that, hammering at the All Black line. Most of the attacks are close to where a runner was brought to ground.

Then suddenly they win the ball from a tackle thing, about two metres from the All Black goal-line. Neil de Kock looks to pass to his right. On his right and fairly shallow is James Dalton, the Springbok hooker who had already played a part in the attacks. He runs towards De Kock, hands out as if to take a pass.

Standing close to the place of the tackle are Aaron Mauger, right next to it, and Dave Hewitt next to Mauger, in place for the next close-in attack.

Instead the Springboks attack wide. De Kock does not pass to Dalton but about 11m beyond him to flyhalf André Pretorius.

In the mean time Dalton is advancing towards Mauger and Hewitt, and Mauger and Hewitt are advancing on Dalton.

Pretorius then throws a long skip pass to Breyton Paulse who dances around lock Simon Maling and over for what he thinks is a try, which he celebrates with a flick-flack. The celebration is premature as it turns out as the referee had penalised Dalton for obstructive running - the much-discussed decoy.

Law 10, foul play, deals with this:

1 OBSTRUCTION

(b) Running in front of a ball - carrier. A player must not voluntarily move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball, thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball-carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball-carriers when they gain possession.

Penalty: Penalty Kick

That is what Dalton was adjudged to have done.

Three team-mates handled the ball. De Kock was at the base of the tackle thing and passed before Dalton got in front of him. There was no question of Dalton's being in front of a ball-carrier at that stage.

André Pretorius was about 11m infield from Dalton. Dalton was ahead (i.e. nearer the All Black line) of Pretorius when Pretorius got the ball. He was in front but not directly in front. When Dalton made contact with Mauger and Hewitt, who in fact seemed to make more contact with Dalton than the hooker did with them, he was about 16m in from touch. Pretorius was about 28m in from touch.

(The measurements presjume that the field is 70m wide.)

Pretorius made no attempt to run with the ball but immediately passed the long pass to Paulse who was about 18m from him. Pretorius was momentarily a ball-carrier.

Paulse was the serious ball-carrier at the time as he scooted round Simon Maling - a back's delight, running at a tight forward, as Aaron Mauger experienced later in the game.

Look at the position of the players, roughly in metres.

De Kock was about 13 metres in from touch when he picked up the ball.
Dalton was roughly 16 metres from touch.
Pretorius was roughly 28 metres in from touch.
Paulse was about 46 metres from the Springbok's left-hand touch-line.

Now the decision for the referee, with no slow motions at his disposal, no chance to sit and think about it, was whether Dalton's action prevented Mauger or Hewitt or both from getting to Pretorius or Paulse.

Did Dalton's action prevent Mauger or Hewitt or both from getting to Paulse?

If the referee believes that Dalton's action prevents Mauger and/or Hewitt from tackling the current ball-carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball-carriers when they gain possession, then he is obliged to penalise Dalton.

That is what he did.

It is probably farfetched to think that Mauger or Hewitt would/could have got to Pretorius before he passed or Paulse before he went on his arching run.

The referee's eye view is interesting. He was in in-goal, slightly on the touch line side of the tackle-thing. As he moved to his left Dalton was running in a direct path at him.

He blew for the penalty. His whistle went just as Pretorius passed the ball to his right.

It seemed that neither Paulse nor Maling heard the whistle. But it certainly went.

Is it possible that the referee considered Dalton's action as wrong because he played two players who did not have the ball? Farfetched. It may well have been that the All Blacks played Dalton without the ball!

Whatever happened, nothing justified the pitch invader's actions.