There were close calls for New Zealand, Australia and South Africa this weekend - against Ireland, the New Zealand Maori and Wales. All three matches were tight to the end. In all three the underdogs nearly ended top dogs. In all three the refereeing was excellent.

Excellent or not, there are always things to talk about - briefly.

All three matches had their cantankerous moments, but mostly the South Africa- Wales match where some players wrestled about like mini-Sumos or children in a nursery school playground.

Just one little remark.

Would it not be better if commentators commentated on a match played between two teams? Two. Not just one.

They then would act in an impartial manner and so be less likely to see the referee as the enemy of their side.

Having been a good hooker does not make the new commentator knowledgeable about the laws of the game or the intricacies of refereeing.

1. Those confounded scrums

New Zealand's first scrum was reset twice and ended in a free kick. Ireland's first scrum was reset twice and ended in a free kick.

It cannot make sense to anybody, this mess of a situation.

The referee was not having any either. He called the front rows out eventually and said: "If you continue to play like this, I'll put you in the bin."

In that match there were 25 scrums. There were nine resets, six free kicks and a penalty goal.

It makes no sense.

It is no wonder that the referee considered sanctions.

2. Sentinels

Did you notice pushing and shoving at ruck-things? A player of the team likely to win the ball would stand on the side of the ruck-thing ahead of the last feet to get in the way of any lateral aggression. A player of the other side would not like this and push him.

The law requires that, it is actually a ruck, the players of both teams are required to be behind the last feet.

Otherwise the situation can cause bad blood, or at least outbursts of petulance.

3. The dangers of the try

It can be dangerous to score a try. Sometimes the opposition are driven by resentment and try to take it out on the player who has succeeded in doing just what the game most requires him to do - score a try.

Bruce Reihana of the Maori dived over for a try. Mat Rogers of the Wallabies then dived on him.

You are not allowed to dive on a player on the ground, knees first or not. The profit in doing so after he has already scored, is nil. To do so knees first seems vindictive - to hurt not stop the try or get the ball.

The referee in this case waited for Carlos Spencer to take the conversion. Then he awarded the Maori a penalty kick in the middle of the half-way line.

Correct?

100% correct. The penalty is awarded where the ball would next come into play - in this case at the kick-off.

It probably needs to happen more often.

4. High tackles

The referee acted against two high tackles. In so doing he gave one penalty.

Why?

In the first instance he allowed advantage to the Wallabies. Bryce Williams tackled Elton Flatley high but Matthew Burke went on and scored a try.

The referee did not leave the matter there. He awarded the try and then spoke to Williams.

Later Jonno Gibbes tackled Elton Flatley high. Flatley had not ducked or changed direction. There was no excuse for the heavy tackle. The referee showed Gibbes a yellow card.

In both instances, the referee acted correctly. It would be negligent to ignore foul play because a try has been scored.

5. Downward pressure

Behind his goal-line Colin Charvis of Wales tried to clear. Craig Davidson of South Africa charged the kick down which wobbled off to ward s the dead-ball line. Davidson scampered after it and dived hands out to the slippery ball.

The referee referred the matter to the Irish television match official, who decided that it was a try.

People asked about "downward pressure".

Law 22.1(b): A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player's body from the waist to neck inclusive.

That is what Davidson is judged to have done - got his hand on the ball in a downward motion. It does not matter if it then squirted forward.

6. One foot in and one foot out

Brent Russell, the exciting Springbok fullback, caught a wayward dropped goal attempt. The commentator remarked that when he did so he had a foot in the field of play and so had to run the ball out.

Law 22: A defending player who has one foot on the goal-line or in the in-goal who receives the ball is considered to be in in-goal.

Therefore he was in in-goal when he caught the ball. Therefore if he had dotted it down, it would not be a case of "carried over".

7. Does it matter?

André Pretorius of South Africa, somewhere around the half-way line, kicked downfield for touch after the Springboks had won a ruck-thing. The ball bounced infield and rolled into touch some 30m downfield. There was no Welshman near it.

When he kicked, burly prop Ollie le Roux moved forward. He did not do so at speed. His movement had no effect on the ball some 30m downfield or on any Welshman wanted to play the ball.

Make sense to penalise him?

Not really.

8. "Wait for me."

There is a scrum infringement. The scrumhalf wants to play. He taps and runs. The referee stops him and tells him to wait for him.

The scrum then breaks up and moves away. The element of surprise is gone. The referee then allows play to continue.

Correct?

There are definitely two schools of thought here.

The one which wants play to get on as quickly as possible, will allow the scrumhalf to take a tap kick behind the place of infringement, in other words behind the scrum.

Some allow him to do it next to the scrum.

Then there is the more deliberate action which will not allow the player to play until after the referee has made the mark, somewhere near where the hooker had been.

Law 21.2 (a): The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark.

Ok, where's the mark?

Law 21.1: Unless a law states otherwise the mark for a penalty or free kick is at the place of infringement.

It does not say anything about any mark a referee may designate. It is just at the place of infringement, and the player is allowed to play behind that place.

Few infringements happen on a heel mark.

It would seem that it is fair enough for the player to play but behind the mark - not a metre or so to the side of it - just behind it.