1. Let's get rid of a "minor matter" first - stamping:

Stamping is not allowed - that is putting boots on players. What is allowed is rucking - that is putting boots on the ball to heel it back.

In the first half, the Canterbury Crusaders were twice penalised for stamping on players - putting their boots on prone players not even near the ball.

The referee said to one of the stampers: "You can't reach the ball even with a 6-foot leg!"

If the player is near the ball - between your team and the ball - are you allowed then to put the boot down his back, which is to you?

No. The ball is beyond his body. Putting the boot on his back is not putting it on the ball. There is the whole width of his body between you and the ball.

There was none of that in the Heineken Cup finals but when there was a spat of aggressive emotion the referee said: "Self-control, please. Self control."

2. Luck and the corner flag:

John O'Neill must believe the fates have deserted him. In 2001 against Stade Français he scored what seemed to the whole world to be a try - the whole world except those who would award the try. The touch judge decided that he was in touch-in-goal and the try was disallowed.

On that occasion the television match official was not used.

This year the television match official was used and that denied the same John O'Neill a try.

Replacement centre Mike Mullins broke and sent O'Neill racing for the corner, where he sought to ground the ball for a try with his side behind 15-9 and time running out. O'Neill was tackled by Austin Healey and the corner post was knocked over.

In this action O'Neill grounded the ball just in the in-goal area from touch-in-goal.

This time the television match official was used and a drop-out ensued as O'Neill had hit the corner post before grounding the ball.

Look where the ball landed up neatly placed in in-goal.

Notice that Healey's body was further into touch than O'Neill's was and wonder what would have happened had there been no television match official.

Perhaps a try would have been given.

Odd thing that corner post. It's the only place on the field where touch extends upwards in that fashion. If there had been no corner post O'Neill would not have been out because he would have grounded the ball before landing on the ground in touch.

There is a school of thought which believes that the corner post is anachronistic.

3. Garforth's binding:

The referee penalsied Darren Garforth three times. It caused Garforth much resentment and bewilderment.

Garforth is a prop. Props do get bewildered. Other people also get bewildered about the workings (and shenanigens) of the front row.

What is a tighthead prop required to do?

Law 20 deals with the scrum.

It says of all players in the front row:

2. (a) All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each front-row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.

The operative word is forward.

3 BINDING IN THE SCRUM - DEFINITION

When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.

(a) Binding by all front-row players. All front-row players must bind firmly and continuously from the start to the finish of the scrum.

(d) Binding by tighthead props. A tighthead prop must bind on the opposing loosehead prop by placing the right arm outside the upper arm of the opposing loosehead prop. The tighthead prop must grip the loosehead prop's jersey with the right hand only on the back or side. The tighthead prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition loosehead prop.

The tighthead prop must not exert downward pressure.

Have a look at arm for one thing.

Secondly, have a look at that word continuous. At no time is a prop allowed to put his hand on the ground.

The sanction for getting binding wrong is a penalty.

It may all just mean that the referee got those three penalties right.

4. O'Gara's kick:

Ronan O'Gara, the Munster flyhalf, kicked for touch from outside of his 22. The ball went into touch.

Line-out? No problem.

Where? Problem.

If the ball went out without bouncing in the field of play or being touched, the line-out was opposite where O'Gara kicked. If the ball went out after bouncing in the field of play or being touched, the line-out is where it went out.

The ball dipped towards the touch-line. There was a Leicester player between the ball and the touch judge, sort of.

The touch judge, a most experienced official, was quite a long way back from where the ball went out. He was uncertain whether or not the ball had gone out on the full.

The referee, infield and, naturally, behind, was uncertain whether or not the ball went out on the full.

Going to guess? It's always wrong to guess.

Now who gets the benefit of the doubt? Munster or Leicester?

To make a decision the officials need to be sure.

They were sure of the primary decision - that the ball had gone out and that Leicester were to throw in at the line-out.

The secondary decision was about where the ball bounced. It would take a secondary decision to say that it had gone out on the full. They could not make that decision. They could not say that the ball had not bounced in the field of play.

The decision which they made - to have the line-out where the ball went out - was, in the circumstances, the right one.

5. Back's hand:

The game is drawing to a close. Leicester lead 15-9. Munster are attacking with brave determination as they search for the seven points which will give them the Heineken Cup. A converted try.

Munster have to put the ball into a scrum, 5m from the Leicester line and close to the goal posts. Score from here and the conversion would give them the win.

Peter Stringer, the Muster scrumhalf, comes to the scrum to put the ball in. He bends close to the scrum.

Neil Back, the Leicester flank, seems to lift his hand and flip the ball from Stringer's hand into his own scrum. Leicester win this bizarre tighthead and clear.

It will become a cause celebre. Long after the scorers and the score has been forgotten people will remember that one scrum and the hand that won the tight-head.

Was what happened wrong?

OK, you are not allow to use your hands in a scrum, but this wasn't in the scrum. How about that?

Let's look at some points.

HOW THE SCRUM-HALF THROWS IN THE BALL

(a) The scrum half must stand at least one metre from the mark on the middle line so that player's head does not touch the scrum or go beyond the nearest front row player.

Perhaps Stringer was too close. But that's really a minor issue.

Next point, the law repeats that the scrumhalf must throw the ball into the scrum - not the flank.

Stringer did not throw the ball in. That's an infringement.

Next - when does the scrum start?

(a) Play in the scrum begins when the ball leaves the hands of the scrum-half.

It left Stringer's hand. Does that mean it had started correctly? No, because he had not thrown it

Then look:

(c) All players: Other restrictions on winning the ball. Players must not try to win the ball in the scrum by using any part of their body except their foot or lower leg.

That's not all:

(f) Locks and flankers: Staying out of the tunnel. A player who is not a front-row player must not play the ball in the tunnel.

What Back appeared to do, would appear to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

It was simply wrong.

Perhaps it was an accident.

That is still wrong.

If it was deliberate in that position, severe sanctions could apply.

Nobody with any sense would say that Munster would certainly have scored then. After all they tried for 80 other minutes and did not score a try.

But they were in a good position. So perhaps they could have scored.

If the referee had seen the occurrence, he would have penalised Back. But Munster still needed the try. Perhaps Back felt a certain immunity for his side in that.

But if the referee had judged that Back had deliberately infringed - the badly named professional foul - he may well have sent him from the field, at least temporarily. That may well have improved Munster's chances of scoring the decisive try. (In fact if you look at those last frantic minutes of the match, right there in the red zone, there were more actions than just the one incident which could have earned Back a yellow card.)

For referees, the interesting aspect of it is why the referee did not pick it up.

The referee, with his energy, concentration and accuracy, had an excellent game. Why miss this?

Look what is happening at scrums. The referees are getting closer and closer for all that crouch-hold-engage stuff. They then have to switch places with the scrumhalf, getting back and out of the way while he approaches the scrum.

If the referee moves backwards to do so, he is behind the scrum. His view is obscured. If the scrumhalf then nestles into the scrum, it becomes even harder for the referee to see what is happening.

Then we have been told over and over that the scrum, is just a means of restarting the game. Don't get pedantic. It doesn't matter how it gets into the scrum.

That's the attitude, isn't it? Until it matters, as it did at Millennium Stadium on Saturday afternoon.

That's one way this could happen, but it did not happen this time.

This time the scrum had been reset twice, the first time because the Leicester loosehead did not go down at the engage. The referee then went, as referees often do, to the far side of the scrum.

This scrum was just in side the right upright of the posts as Munster looked at them, in other words a long way from the touch judge on Stringer's side - just more than half the width of the field away.

And so it happened. The referee was in a bad position to see as he had not bent down to look through the tunnel and the touch judge was too far from the action.

Stringer was aggrieved that the officials had taken no action. But, bless them, they had not cheated. They just didn't see.

Perhaps that bending is important if you are on the far side.

Nobody wants to make moral judgements of what happened and who made it happen. That is a pointless exercise. But it's also silly to try to justify it - unless of course you believe that rugby football, born of a "fine disregard for the rules of football as played in his time", is at its best when it continues to indulge in a fine disregard for the rules of the game, that the hooligans' game played by gentlemen is now just a hooligans' game.