Running Rugby, played at pace, with a reduction in set-pieces and a correlating increase in rucks and mauls, lots and lots of continuity - everyone wants it, from the coaches through to the players and spectators. But to what extent we get it still depends largely on the referees, and judging by the events at Donnybrook on Saturday there may be trouble ahead.

David McHugh and his refereeing cohorts are clearly going to be hot on `bridging', whereby forwards from the attacking side stand sideways over a ruck to provide a protective shield for the ball. Equally it seems, they are going to be hot in penalising forwards for not staying on their feet. In this regard, Stephen Rooney was the main culprit, and will have to make a greater effort. Yet in the southern hemisphere, the attacking side is allowed to protect ruck ball by `bridging' and rarely, if ever, are they penalised for going to ground, provided they don't play the ball. And herein lies the rub.

In the southern hemisphere, referees tend to penalise the defending team; in the northern hemisphere, it seems they veer more towards penalising the attacking team. Certainly McHugh did, and to compound this he not only allowed Ulster to prevent Leinster from taking quick tap penalties, he actually facilitated them. Furthermore, not once did he penalise either side for failing to retreat 10 metres. Leinster were thus forced to kick to touch and all of this eventually and frustratingly made for more of a set-piece game.

This is not an exclusively Irish problem. In the Tri-Nations, northern hemisphere referees have continuously stuck to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it in letting the game flow.

The All Blacks, especially, rose above it, most obviously when the pedantic Derek Bevan took charge in customary fashion in the Kiwi defeat of the Springboks last Saturday week. But even they were reduced to frustrated impotence in the second-half at Dunedin on Saturday as the ridiculously theatrical Joel Dume awarded 38 penalties.

With the Tri-Nations and Bledisloe Cup retained, the All Blacks' coach John Hart confined his criticism to the mild observation that: "It made the game such a frustrating game and there was no flow at all."

"Goodness gracious, how hard can you blow the whistle?" inquired commentator Murray Mexted at one point, and when Dume later implored the irritated Wallabies to calm down he observed: "Maybe the referee should calm down. I think he might have had too much of that caffeine before the game."

Nor had Mexted forgotten Bevan's performance a week before when he repeatedly failed to apply the advantage law as it is applied in the southern hemisphere. Thus, after the Welsh linesman dubiously ruled that a David Knox penalty to the corner flag had travelled into the in-goal area, Mexted said: "That Welsh referee looks pretty arrogant out there."

With Knox having to be restrained by teammates, Mexted added: "Derek Bevan's been surrounded by controversy in the past. I think he likes it so he wouldn't be too worried about it."

In the southern hemisphere they have long realised that rugby is now in the entertainment industry - so it was that the Dunedin crowd resorted to chants of "boring, boring, boring". This seems to have escaped the attention of the vast bulk of the refereeing fraternity in this hemisphere, who should be obliged to watch a video of Monsieur Dume's truly embarrassing performance and compare it with Colin Hawkes' performance in Australia-South Africa clash.

Communication is the key, on the pitch and off it. New Zealand referees liberally disperse advice to players during games. Off it, they engage in constant dialogue with officials and coaches, on the basis that the International Board laws are to be interpreted in the best interests of the game, rather than applied rigidly.

Even as things stand, it's doubtful whether refereeing interpretations in the European Cup, regarding bridging and forwards staying on their feet, will be applied so rigidly. Either way, more communication between the coaches and the referees is urgently needed if the interprovincials and Irish rugby games are to have more continuity.

If McHugh's performance instigated the most animated discussion in Donnybrook and its environs on Saturday evening, then another bugbear was Leinster's latest overseas recruit - Tony Goldfinch.

Unfortunately for the 28-year-old Kiwi open-side flanker, he tweaked a hamstring at his first training session last Tuesday and again in Saturday's A game - so the jury is still out as to whether he can fill one of Leinster's problem positions.

Gone, thank heaven, are the days when England were leading the way towards backrows comprised entirely of man mountain number eights. The All Blacks, of course, opted for a relatively lightweight pack a couple of years ago, and the importance of a genuine open-side flanker as a linkman in the modern game was emphasised by Neil Back's displays for the Lions.

There's a dearth of them in this country, especially in Leinster. So it was that the Leinster management sought one and gambled on Goldfinch, purely on word of recommendation. You can see why. In the short-term, their aims are the Interprovincial Championship and the European Cup, and if Goldfinch fills a crucial void, then criticism will be muted. If, though, the gamble doesn't come off, then murmurs of discontent (even, already, within the Leinster squad) will grow louder.

It's also worth noting that Leinster's hands are tied in some respects. Rather than give them a budget to use as they see fit (which is what the Irish provinces will be competing against in the European Cup) the IRFU set ceilings of a £25,000 retainer for full-time players and £7,500 for part-timers, with match fees and win bonuses of £350 to £800. They also pointed the way by permitting each province to field two overseas players. But, in the modern world, New Zealand or anywhere else, £25,000 will only get you so much.

Furthermore, what long-term benefit is this policy to Irish rugby? And how many of Leinster's 21 part-timers would jump at the opportunity of a full-time contract and with it the chance to give up their day jobs and undoubtedly become better players? Instead, what kind of message does it send to them? Who could now blame them for taking up offers across-channel? And again, it is worth noting, the lead is coming from the IRFU.