I've been reading with interest the debate surrounding claims rugby has 'gone soft', with various arguments put forward following the red card handed out to Will Spencer in the Leicester v Wasps game.

We can address the law in a moment, but rugby gone soft? That's certainly not the way I see it. If anything, it's become more physical and more hard in terms of the ferocity of tackles.

It is also not as dirty as it was many years ago when cheap shots were the norm. There is a huge difference between dirty play and hard play, let me emphasise.

I refereed the New Zealand versus South Africa Rugby Championship match in Wellington last weekend. Some of the hits in that game were monumental and even had me thinking to myself 'How the heck do these players get back up to their feet?'

It was a great game of rugby, one of the classics no doubt, and credit to the two teams for that. It was brutal and physical in the contact areas, but never during the game was it dirty. There wasn't even any foul play. It was no-holds barred and, as I say, brutal - perfect evidence that the game has not gone soft. No way has it.

Aphid Dyantyi scores a try in what was a brutally contested Test match against New Zealand (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)

Players in the modern age are bigger, fitter, stronger and there is more ball in play time, up to 45 minutes in some games. Even the free-flowing Wales team of the 1970s only had a ball in play time of around half that in their matches.

So players naturally get more tired, that is when mistakes can happen. A mis-timing, or missed tackle, for example.

What is important to stress here is that player welfare has to be the priority. The laws are there to try to make a very physical game, which if anything is getting more physical, not softer, as risk free as we possibly can, but still keep it recognisable as we know rugby to truly be.

There will always be accidents in rugby, and sport in general, which are outside of anybody's control. There is nothing we can do about that.

I know some players who are the nicest men you could wish to meet off the field, but sometimes in a game something causes the red mist to come down and we then land up dealing with a major act of foul play. We have a duty as referees to ensure those incidents of dirty foul play are dealt with appropriately on the field and that accidents don't happen as a result of the actions of somebody who has done something reckless and dangerous.

So let me outline what is deemed a high tackle, what is not, when there are mitigating circumstances and you can make your own call on particular incidents based upon what the law says.

Will Spencer is sent off by referee Ian Tempest for a high tackle in the Leicester versus Wasps clash

If you tackle somebody above the line of the shoulder, then that's high and as a player you must face the consequence of a card. If you are reckless and always high, and with force direct to the head or neck, then you're probably looking at a red card offence.

Likewise, if you do not wrap your arms around the ball carrier, and lead with your shoulder, then that too is illegal and you must face the consequences.

I think people accept those. The more grey issue arises when you start your tackle slightly lower, but the force of the hit and other circumstances mean you eventually end up around the neck area. That too will be deemed a high tackle, but if you started low and don't carry through with any other action when you land up around the ball-carrier's neck, then you're looking at a penalty on most occasions.

Go back 20-30 years and players were always taught to tackle around the waist, so we didn't really have this sort of thing happening as often.

A great like Ray Gravell would either fend off the would-be tackler with the palm of his hand, or he was so strong he'd still be able to take a couple of steps, offload and put a team-mate away.

However, defence has become so strong a part of the modern game that coaches often look for a double hit to prevent this type of thing, or the one tackler aiming around the chest area.

You'll get the low tackle, the Dan Lydiate-type, if you like, but simultaneously a team-mate will tackle higher than the waist to try to dislodge the ball, or prevent offloads and the opposition getting the ball away.

If the tackle is higher to start with and the force goes up to the ball carrier's head, or indeed he dips his head just a couple of inches and contact is made that way, then you run the risk of a red or yellow card. The fact you were always aiming higher with the tackle means you take the consequences of your action. The few inches dip by the ball carrier doesn't matter.

If, on the other hand, the tackle is around the stomach area to start with, we the referees will view things differently. The ball carrier could still stumble, or be knocked off balance, or be tackled so he is already falling into you and contact subsequently appears high. But there are mitigating circumstances because the initial tackle was lower to begin with.

You either play on, if there was no foul play, or you give a penalty because it was no more than an accident, but still a tackle that finished above the shoulders and therefore deemed to be high.

If you are making an illegal tackle, namely leading with a shoulder, forearm or elbow, then it doesn't matter how low the ball carrier is coming into you because your actions are wrong to start with and thus there are no circumstances for the referee to mitigate over.

A referee does take into account the starting position of the tackle. If you are going in high already, ie not around the waist but aiming above the chest, and the ball carrier's head falls into you, even if it's just a couple of inches, well the risk has been there of you aiming high in the first place.

The directive on high tackles has been there for a while, nothing has changed in that respect. But as referees we are asked to re-iterate the message from time to time.

I addressed the Welsh squad ahead of the Six Nations last year and explained this very point about the risk of a red or yellow card if you were tackling around or above the chest area, as opposed to the waist.

Nigel Owens refereed the match
New Zealand celebrate a try in the game Nigel Owens refereed

I emphasised that if they did want to do a double tackle to prevent an offload, then still aim for the stomach instead of above the nipple because get it wrong and a card could be a consequence. Fortunately, I don't think any Wales player did get a yellow or red for a high tackle during the tournament.

It's such an important issue in the modern game because, as I say, player welfare is our priority. That is why the directive is there and the onus is upon us as referees to implement the law correctly and get this right. But we as referees also have to use our own initiative when making decisions that were more of an accident, than something caused with any intent.

I can totally understand why people raise issues about this, that a 6ft 6in player tackling a 5ft 10in player could end up around his head or neck area in what seems an accidental fashion. But in a way that's irrelevant. Start your tackle in the right position and everything should be fine.

Look, do we get things wrong on this matter as referees sometimes? Yes we do, myself included. I think we're always open and honest about that - well, at least we should be. I will be more than happy to hold up my own hands and admit when I have got a decision wrong.

Do players get things wrong from time to time when they make a tackle? Are they too high, do they lead with the shoulder to the head? Yes they do and when that happens it's our responsibility to take the appropriate action. Sanctions will follow.

If we do the above, and apply the law consistently, then players will naturally get better at making legal tackles in the first place and the sport will be better for it.

Back to the issue of rugby supposedly going soft. Absolutely no way do I see it like that.

Nobody wants to lose the massive hits in matches and I wouldn't want to be involved in games where you take that element away. A huge hit which upends an opponent can send a crowd into raptures as much as a brilliant solo or team try.

We've seen plenty of examples of this with Wales down the years, with fans at the Principality Stadium almost looking on in awe and wonder at times when Richard Hibbard has thumped into somebody and sent him hurtling backwards.

Something like that can lift a team, and a crowd, just as much as a dazzling Shane Williams run.

As I've already said, modern players are bigger, stronger, heavier, so the tackles are invariably harder. The New Zealand v Springboks match I officiated was a perfect example of that. I almost winced at some of the challenges, but they were legal and the players on the end of them simply got up, dusted themselves down and dished out the same medicine to their opponent next time.

The Springboks celebrate
The Springboks celebrate their epic win

Rugby at its best and played within the laws of the game. Perfectly fair, perfectly legal, the spirit in which the sport should be played.

We have that duty to play within the boundaries of the law, and particularly when it comes to high tackles and the incidents we've had with regards concussion.

As referees, we have to apply that law, but also possess the ability to apply empathy when a genuine accident happens.

Players have to accept that contact with the head simply cannot be made and starting your tackle lower is one way to avoid that.

Two more great Nigel Owens columns

But that doesn't mean the game has gone soft. Trust me, I'm there in the middle and I see it close up and first hand. I marvel at the power and physicality of some of the tackles we see.

I often tell myself I'm glad I'm a referee and not a player - as I'd still be on the ground until the following day, I reckon!