What a great performance by the All Blacks last Saturday, at least for fifty minutes of scintillating rugby.
But, as is often the case in test matches, there were a couple of contentious decisions by the match officials which have generated a bit of head-scratching by the general public.
The Ryan Crotty no-try was one such incident. To the naked eye at normal speed it looked like both Crotty and Foley had grounded the ball at the same time.
The slow motion replay that we and the TMO all saw suggested there may have been a millimetre or two separation between both players grounding the ball.
In the end, the TMO ruled "simultaneous grounding" which somewhat stunned me, because I had never heard that term before in regard to decisions a referee can make in-goal.
What he should have said was "there is doubt as to who first grounded the ball in in-goal" which is covered in law under Law 22.15.
Play resumed with a 5m scrum with the All Blacks putting the ball into the scrum, which is the correct decision if there is doubt as to which player first grounded the ball.
So, right decision, wrong reason.
However, I have found a reference to "simultaneous grounding" in the instructions for TMOs and I will refer to that scenario later.
But at least they got that one right.
The Israel Falou try was probably a more contentious decision. The initial pass (again from Foley) definitely travelled forward, but was it passed forward?
The definition of a forward pass is "when the arms of the player passing the ball move forward towards the opposing team's dead ball line."
What referees look for is arms passing in a backward direction.
Even then, the ball often appears to travel forward because it continues travelling forward at the speed at which the passer was travelling.
In this case, Foley's right hand pointed backwards as he attempted to put backspin on the ball but I think he lost control of it as he passed and the backspin never eventuated - the ball certainly seemed to me to travel forward out of the hands.
That brings us to the second act of the incident - was Falou offside when he picked the ball up and bolted for the try line?
Again, played at normal speed it definitely looked like he was in front of the Wallaby player whom the ball had touched.
Played in slow motion it was not quite as clear-cut, so the TMO's decision that it was "not clear that Falou was in front" led to play being allowed to continue.
If only the same referee and TMO had been in control of the third All Black vs Lions test.
Referees should only rule on what they can see is "clear and obvious" - guessing based on something the referee did not see could lead to some very awkward questions from an aggrieved captain.
On the other hand, I well remember a conversation many years ago with Colin Pedley - a first class referee from the Taihape Sub Association - when we often travelled to meetings and games together while I was principal of Ngamatea School on Fields Track, next to the home of the famous Donald clan.
He said that "if something doesn't look right (on the field) it probably isn't".
In those situations, you had to think quick smart, if it doesn't look right, why not?
No TMO and slow motion replays to help on the fields of Ohakune, Taihape and Waiouru in those days, so the "clear and obvious" advice is probably the most useful for referees.
Back to the "simultaneous grounding."
There is reference to this in the guidelines for TMOs in New Zealand, but it refers to a situation where a player grounds the ball in-goal and goes into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line at the same time - ie simultaneously with the act of grounding the ball.
Interestingly, there is no reference to "simultaneous grounding" in the World Rugby (old IRB) guidelines for TMOs or to the situation where two opponents ground the ball at the same time.
So maybe the NZ Rugby Union is a step ahead of the international body, or did they just anticipate the situation that arose last weekend?
There is one other critical difference between the guidelines issued to match officials of New Zealand games, such as Mitre 10 and Heartland cup matches, and those issued by World Rugby.
For these NZ-appointed games, the guidelines specifically prevent the TMO from initiating any reviews of foul play, so only the referee or his two assistants can ask for such a review.
The World Rugby guidelines state that the TMO may initiate a review of foul play, as well as the referee and assistant referees.
This protocol will be in force for all international matches such as tonight's test match.
There will be no TMO at the match this afternoon when Wanganui takes on Wairarapa-Bush in the first game of the Heartland rugby season, so let's hope the match officials make the right calls without one.