Theoretically, Saturday's video referee Brian Campsall had every available facility when making his decision from a specially installed van behind the East Stand. Aside from RTE pictures (the station had 10 cameras covering the game), Campsall had assistants with remote controls alongside him who had access to four cameras situated in each corner of the ground, which were installed by a private company hired by the IRFU.

Then there is the question of what actually constitutes a try. "Law 22 - In-Goal" of the IRB's Laws of the Game of Rugby Union 2000, defines grounding the ball in two ways, the first of which is applicable to Saturday's incident.

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. "Holding" means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

Thus, no longer is the try scorer obliged to steady the ball or apply downward pressure as in the old days.

Nonetheless, was Brian O'Driscoll still holding the ball when it came into contact with the ground, or was his hand still touching the ball when it touched the ground?

Viewed in that light some people, such as Keith Wood, maintained that there was an argument in favour of awarding a try. To many eyes though, he was no longer touching the ball with his hand before it touched the ground, so technically it was a knock-on and a five metre scrum to France should have been awarded.

It could help the video referee if Rugby Union adopted a principle, such as exists in other sports like cricket or rugby league, whereby the benefit of the doubt is given to the defending team or batting team. In the heel of the hunt, this was one of those marginal decisions where you could put 10 referees in a room, replay the incident 100 times from 14 different camera angles and you still mightn't get a unanimous verdict.