You can go for weeks and weeks in the Super 14 with something like two thousand things referees have had to look for each weekend and there is no controversy. Then comes a weekend when controversies flourish. It happened this weekend. They were not every-day controversies, either, but they concerned tries given and not given.

The controversial issues are worth looking at - the penalty try against the Lions, the try for the Brumbies, the deliberate knock-down against the Sharks and the penalty in the line-out shortly afterwards.

1. The penalty try given

There is only one reason to award a penalty try - if foul play prevents the probable scoring of a try. Probable, not possible, and probable, not definite. Definite is a bit more than probable but little in a rugby match is definite.

Penalty try recurs under repeated infringements but again the emphasis is on the offence which prevents a probable try.

Law 10.2 A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

In this match the Lions' scrummaging had been poor. The Brumbies had put the ball into five five-metre scrums. The first one had worked and had not produced a try. The next three produced penalties for going up or down, including a yellow card for Kevin Buys. The next one worked. Then some time later there was the penalty try.

This was not a good scrum for the Brumbies as the scrum wheeled to their left and did not move forward. There was no probability of a push-over try. The ball at the back of the scrum was not tidy as their scrumhalf Josh Valentine bent to pick it up. There is nothing in what Valentine did that suggested that he would probably score a try. As he bent to pick it up the Lions' scrumhalf, JP Joubert, darted forward to play the ball. The penalty try was awarded.

It is hard to fathom why the penalty was awarded because there was nothing to suggest that a try would probably have been scored.

When Joubert darted forward to play the ball, he may well have put part of his right foot beyond the ball which would have made him offside. But doing that did not prevent the probable scoring of a try, nor was it an intentional infringement. His intention was clear to play the ball as it bounced out of the scrum.

10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
Sanction: Free Kick

(c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line if the offence is between the 15-metre line and the touchline, or, at the place of infringement if the offence occurred elsewhere in the field of play, or, 5 metres from the goal line and at least 15 metres from the touchline if the infringement occurred in in-goal.

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

It did not seem that Joubert was guilty of (a), (b) or (c), nor that a try would probably have been scored.

At the awarding of a penalty try, the law also requires that the offending player be sent to the sin bin or permanently off - a yellow card or a red card. The referee was obliged by law to send Joubert to the sin bin or off. In this case the referee did not speak to Joubert except when the scrumhalf came to him, at which the referee said: "Out of there. Move away."

There was no fracas to get out of. Presumably the referee was simply dismissing any complaint that Joubert may have had.

What about repeated infringement as a reason to award a penalty try?

Law 10.3 REPEATED INFRINGEMENTS
(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily suspended.

(b) Repeated infringements by the team. When different players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and temporarily suspends the guilty player(s). If a player of that same team then repeats the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

Again there was no caution or temporary suspension.

It seems that the situation was ill-managed and the impression of haughtiness was unlikely to endear the referee to the players or gain their confidence and cooperation.

This all happened on 36 minutes when the score was 3-all.