In a few weeks the Lions will be here.

Their forward pack is sure to contain a few hard nuts, including a ginger-haired lock from Munster, Paul O'Connell. They can be a bit wild from around that part of Ireland and O'Connell's not averse to a spot of how's your father.

O'Connell has just been given a two-week suspension for punching in the Six Nations decider against Wales. But that's by the way.

He is also a fine, rugged footballer, but not averse to putting his size 13s where - as we now know from events this week - the laws of rugby state, he shouldn't. A young man's Martin Johnson, if you like.

Now picture this: it's five minutes from the end of the first test on June 25. The All Blacks are three points ahead and a ruck develops near their line. As O'Connell and his mates arrive they peer down and see a black shirt with a big 7 on it, blocking their way to the ball.

What do O'Connell and Co do? I'll tell you what they won't do: stand and appeal to the referee. You won't hear, "Please ref, Richie's in the way. Again".

Now I know you've heard it all before, day after day. You've studied it ad infinitum, frame by frame and here's some bloke banging on about it again.

But just so you know, read this from the laws of rugby, more specifically, Law 16.3 (f): "A player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball tries to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball."

There it is, word for word. Throw in Law 10.4 ("A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent") for good measure. Cue rejoicing from the world's loosies.

Blues lock Ali Williams stepped on McCaw, who was blocking his way to the ball. Feet were going up and down.

Fair enough, too, many will say, but was he rucking, which is supposed to involve the rucker moving forward, feet moving back and ruckee being despatched out the back?

That rule suggests countless players have been breaking that law without punishment for years. So why Williams? Why now? And why six weeks, which seems over the top?

Is this the end of an integral part of the game? Maybe it is, as the Blues have suggested in their appeal on Williams' behalf, a case of a too literal interpretation of the laws.

After all, what's a bloke to do if he can't get at the ball. I'll bet O'Connell and and his mates have a fair idea.