The reason was that we were so tired of the referee penalising us in the scrums that it seemed the better alternative would be just to hand over possession - feed the ball into their side and go from there. Panno had said to me: 'We'll back our defence. Give 'em the ball rather than a kick at goal.'

I was penalised anyway, for not putting the ball into the middle of the scrum ...

See, scrums were such messy affairs, with so many possible areas of disagreement in the process, that a referee, if he wanted to, could blow the whistle on whatever it was he'd decided was amiss.

It got to the point that the amount of penalty goals converted from supposed scrum infractions was deciding the games. The powers that be, following extensive considered complaint from spectators and lovers of the game, introduced a penalty modification - the idea of a 'differential,' which was the awarding of a penalty, almost always from a scrum, that did not allow for a kick at goal.

It was a valuable and necessary modification - otherwise the referees simply had too much power.

Watching today's games though I'm wondering if we're beginning to creep backwards in direction, towards those iffy possibilities.

The Raiders and the Sharks this last week. With 15 minutes to go the home team, the Raiders, were awarded a penalty for a holding down on the play-the-ball offence by the Sharks. Conversion. Two points. Match.

The question that bothers me is: That ref could have blown the whistle on a whole bunch of previous transgressions of that type, but didn't. Why that one?

The fact is that the ten metre rule means that, with a quick play-the-ball, it is virtually impossible for the defending players in the vicinity to make it back on-side. In almost every play-the-ball there is some form of attempt by the defence to slow things down.

Whether they are penalised or not, though, is entirely at the referee's discretion.

It seems to me that such a situation is not too dissimilar to the pre-differential scrum days, and that the grey areas involved in the ruck allow for a bit too much prospective 'subjective' whistle blowing.

A solution may be as simple as the introduction of a differential style penalty for holding down, perhaps with a five minute sin-bin option for if the holding crosses into what might be considered a professional foul. At the moment the two point gifts from these situations are excessive.

We want results determined by players, not the whims of officials.

As I've said before, I'm a little bothered by Annersley's pre-season statement about referees 'rewarding entertaining football.'

And it's not just me. Recent conversations I've had with fellow league tragics have been notable in the uniformity of the query: are the punters being strung along here?

People are openly voicing the opinion that it's better to be behind at half-time, because you know the ref will look after you in the second half.

Close finishes, wins from behind, popular wins at home ... I'm not alone in feeling that these types of outcomes are, to some extent, being manufactured with the whistle.

I wonder what types of instructions the referees are operating under, and, if my suspicions are correct, then my genuine fear is that the integrity of the game is being compromised.

I'm pleased here to announce that the Vittoria hamper for the best sports moment competition goes to Jason Cheeseman.

Jason went for being at ANZ on November 16, 2005, when Australia beat Uruguay in a penalty shoot-out in front of 82,000 people to qualify for the World Cup for the first time in 32 years.

You win Jason. Drop in to the cafe when you get a chance to collect your prize.