COME tomorrow, there will be much to debate about the results of today's rugby union internationals - but the main topic will likely be 'that tackle'.

'That tackle' has become the sport's focal point. We don't yet know which of today's matches will feature it. Maybe it will be more than one. I hope not.

As the sport becomes ever more high octane, players are having to adjust to far more stringent refereeing of high tackles.

Justifiably so. The issue of concussion and its debilitating, occasionally fatal effects is being addressed by rugby union's lawmakers, with matches refereed accordingly. Inevitably though, such adjustments are not illustrated with a nice clear set of catch-all situations and outcomes.

On the field of play, regarded and described regularly in match reports in terms of a battleground, nothing is clear.

There are always grey areas in the interpretation of the sport's laws. That does not apply solely to rugby union, but in a sport of such uncompromising physical contact, those interpretations almost always come with an extra dose of muscle.

Add referees' interpretations, and the questions they ask of television match officials when seeking clarifications, and a grey area can soon become a thick fog.

Last week's 'that tackle' moment of course, was Owen Farrell's halting of South Africa's Andre Esterhuizen at Twickenham. Your (English) correspondent left the room in disgust at Farrell's recklessness, only to be astonished to find he avoided conceding a penalty

No amount of replays and explanations will convince me otherwise, but that is of course my interpretation, and many others far more knowledgeable than I, have weighed in..

It would be nice though, if this weekend's focus could be more about the skills deployed elsewhere on the field.