It would be nice to think that the people running Super Rugby weren't just making things up as they go along.
But they look like they might be - randomly venting about the wrong things at the wrong time.
Read more:
Team of the Week: Aaron Smith back to
his best
Super Rugby winners and losers
All anyone wants is consistency in decision-making and a sense of the game being managed for the greater good rather than of being manipulated by undisclosed agendas. Things have to make sense all of the time, not some of the time.
Which they don't and any hope they ever will is proving to be forlorn in the wake of a most puzzling intervention by Sanzaar referee boss Lyndon Bray which is a classic example of double standards and mixed messages.
Bray felt that Ben Smith crossed a line last week in Dunedin when he asked referee Nick Briant to review whether there had been a knock-on in the build up to a try that had been awarded to the Crusaders.
The Highlanders captain was with his team mates under the posts when he saw the replay of Jordan Taufua's try and decided on the evidence of what he had viewed to march forward to talk to Briant while Crusaders first-five Mitch Hunt was lining up the conversion.
Smith wanted to make sure Briant was aware of the possible infringement and he knew that if Hunt took the kick that would be the end of the matter - the try would stand.
Effectively Smith physically intervened, which was either bold and excellent leadership, or a worrying breach of ethics.
Bray has publicly condemned Smith's actions as being outside the realms of acceptable practice and warned all Super Rugby teams that he does not want to see a repeat.
What troubled Bray was the perception that Smith may have influenced the decision-making of the officials - as the try, after it had been reviewed by TMO Glen Newman - was indeed chalked off due to a knock-on by Tim Bateman.
Bray is understandably nervous about a precedent being set and Super Rugby captains holding the game to ransom after every try has been scored.
But why weren't officials equally concerned about a precedent being set in the third test of the Lions series, when the tourist's captain, Sam Warburton, challenged match referee Romain Poite to review the decision to award the All Blacks a kickable penalty in the last minute of the game.
This was a direct and deliberate attempt by Warburton to influence the decision-making of the officials, and fair play to him, he succeeded and was widely heralded for doing so.
It was hailed as strong captaincy and yet it was entirely against the rules as the incident in question neither related to a try being scored or an act of foul play so Poite should never have referred it to the TMO.
But no one in officialdom saw this as intimidation. No one was worried Warburton may have encouraged captains everywhere to badger referees into seeking TMO guidance outside their jurisdiction.
Likewise, it's commonplace for captains to inquire of referees whether they are going to show an opponent a yellow card and this trend has crept in without incurring any official rebuke.
The so-called moral code by which the game is governed has been eroding for years. Maybe 30 years ago a captain would make the occasional polite inquiry of a referee but for an age now, the line has been blurred as to how much engagement there should be and some officials spend half the game with one or other of the captains prattling in their ear, discussing their every decision.
The truth as everyone can see is that captains have been trying to influence referees for decades. Some have been brilliant at it, others have struggled but regardless there has long been acceptance that a good captain will work the referee.
That's surely all Smith did last weekend? He made a legitimate inquiry of the referee and why his actions and not Warburton's should be considered a cause for concern is impossible to fathom.
And this is the problem - there is this undefined, unspecified code apparently about what constitutes acceptable conduct from a captain in relation to a referee.
There is no consistency or transparency and so of course, players will push the limits. But rugby executives can't therefore be selective about any of this and reactively determine what behaviour is acceptable and what is not.
It has to be all or nothing for rugby. Either the referee becomes entirely off limits to even the captain or those running the game accept that in a grey area they will have grey outcomes that they will have to live with in silence.