1. The tackle on Carter.
Morné Steyn misses a kick at goal. Daniel Carter of New Zealand drops out, the ball bounces and Tony Woodcock passes the ball to Aaron Smith, who sends out a long, looping pass to Carter. Carter faces the coming ball and clearly cannot see Bismarck du Plessis approaching from his blind side. Carter catches the ball and Du Plessis tackles Carter heavily.
The referee immediately blows his whistle and much aggression breaks out between the two sides, none of it centred on Du Plessis.
When the referee blew his whistle, he indicated a penalty to New Zealand. When the playground pulling and pushing was over, Jean de Villiers, the South African captain, said to the referee: "What was wrong with the tackle?" (A fair question.)
The referee said: "Height, shoulder, no arms."
He then told the two captains that when he blew his whistle players had to stop. And he told the TMO that he had made his decision about the tackle but asked him if there was foul play afterwards - that is in the squabbling.
The TMO does as he is asked and looks at the squabbling where he can detect no foul play.
There is no examination of the tackle. The referee does not examine any replay of the tackle either. He calls Du Plessis to him and says: "Height and no arms".He shows him a yellow card. Du Plessis is shocked and goes to the sin bin.
Some points:
i. Du Plessis was not offside. There had been no ruck or maul and only New Zealanders had played the ball.
ii. Carter had the ball. It was not tackling a man without the ball.
iii. A high tackle is defined by law.
Law 10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(e) A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Du Plessis did not tackle Carter above the line of Carter's shoulders, nor did Du Plessis attempt to do so.
iii. Not using the arms is also laid down by the Laws.
Law 10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Du Plessis's right arm was wrapped around Carter's back. His left arm and hand were across Carter's chest, his left hand touching the ball.
He used his arms. He was not guilty of not using his arms.
When Du Plessis came back from the sin bin, the referee told him to use his arms in the tackle - which Du Plessis had in fact done.
2. Summary.
The reasons the referee gave for sending Du Plessis to the sin bin were wrong. It was a refereeing mistake. Mistakes happen but in this case it was so unnecessary. The referee had time to consult his assistants and the TMO and to look at the evidence on the big screen. He, an experienced Test referee, did none of those things but relied on his single impression in real time - and he was wrong.
The New Zealand players were also wrong to start a brawl. It may just be that the referee and the New Zealand players were startled by seeing the hero, one of the greatest players in the history of rugby football, knocked to the ground and injured. But the player must be found guilty of an infringement in law and not because Carter was hurt in an action that is legal under Law.
There should not have been a yellow card against Du Plessis.
3. The charge into Messam
In the second incident Du Plessis gets a pass from Ruan Pienaar and has the ball under his left arm as he charges at Liam Messam of New Zealand. Both players are upright. Du Plessis lifts his right arm bent at the elbow and this elbow and forearm make contact with Messam, sending him reeling backwards. The assistant referee reports possible foul play and - this time - the referee refers the incident to the TMO. The replays confirm what Du Plessis did and he was shown a second yellow card.
Law 10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick
That is what Du Plessis was guilty of.
Yellow card?
Law 10.5 SANCTIONS
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.
It is up to the referee to determine which option he will use of (a) talking to, (b) warning and yellow card and (c) red card. In this case he opted for the middle course.
As a matter of interest John Smit acted similarly against the French captain, Jérôme Thion, when South Africa played France at Stade de France in 2005. After the match Smit was cited, found guilty and suspend for six weeks, which suggests that the IRB regarded it as a red-card offence.
- he just doesn't understand, poor dear). 
