The people who asked for a fuller application of the tackle law and the requirements  of the tackler to comply were the Super 14 coaches. Now there has been some questioning of the application, at least by a coach in New Zealand.

Chiefs forwards coach Craig Stevenson, back from the 72-65 extravaganza in Johannesburg, said that there would be some adjustment to the application of the laws to allow the "second defender" more rights to contest for the ball at the tackle.

The refereeing authorities should in fact be happy about the way the tackler is being handled - requiring him to release and get away - both in player action, for the players seem keen to comply with the law, and in refereeing reaction to noncompliance. The results are obvious - quicker ball and fewer pile-ups and as a result less kicking and more ball in hand.

the tackler's treatment in law application needs to continue. The tackler must continue to allow daylight between his hands and arms and the tackled player and the ball, and he must get away. Everybody, it seems, acknowledges the rights of the tackled player to get rid of the ball.

What does need emphasis is the right of any player on his feet at the tackle to play the ball with confidence. He needs to be on his feet and approach the tackle correctly, that is from behind the width of the prone tackled player and not from the side.

In terms of the law there are also obligations on the tackled player to play the ball and get away from it, not remain foetally curled around the ball. If he fulfilled his obligation of immediate action, the second defender would be better able to exercise his rights, the tackle would be loess predictable and the excitement of turnovers would add spice to the game.

There is no intention to soften the law but merely to apply it more fully, which would also mean more equably.