Last weekend the International Board announced some important changes to the laws of the game that will come into effect for the forthcoming Six Nations Championship. Quite correctly they got a lot of publicity. But while the concentration last weekend was on the law changes, another important decision got little attention.

I refer to the long-awaited findings of the arbitrator appointed to assess the amount of compensation the English Rugby Union (RFU) has to pay to the other three home unions for the clandestine television deal the RFU did with Sky over three years ago. The RFU, contrary to precedent and all previously-accepted principle, acted unilaterally, and sold the rights of their home matches for a five-year period.

That action, as most will readily remember, very nearly did irreparable damage to the game in these islands and led to a threat of expulsion for England from the Five Nations Championship. Happily England stepped back from the brink and the threat of expulsion was lifted. The matter was resolved when the RFU agreed to pay the other home unions - France are not part of the television agreement - a sum of money out of the cash they got from Sky. It was agreed that the money to be paid to the other unions would be decreed by arbitration. It has been a long and painful process for, even after the RFU had agreed to this, there was dissent shown by the English union on the issue.

In the interim a new television deal was agreed by the other nations but the payment of compensation by the RFU was essential. At long last this matter has now been resolved.

While the sum of money the RFU must pay the other three nations was not officially announced it comes to roughly £10.5 million. Thus the Irish, Welsh and Scottish unions will get over £700,000 per annum and a total of £3.5 million each for the five years. Consequently the three unions are currently owed over £2 million each by the RFU.

It is good that this most contentious of issues has been resolved.

But within the resolution is an important lesson: there must be trust and a unity of purpose among the unions, especially those involved in the Six Nations series, whose unity is essential. Otherwise the game will degenerate into chaos. And we have had far too much chaos, controversy and selfishness since the game went professional.

The statement issued by Alan Hosie, the chairman of the Six Nations Committee, is of immense significance and importance.

"Although determined opponents on the rugby field, rugby unions should not be adversaries off it. This has been a a very uncomfortable period for rugby in these islands and we all have a duty to ensure it is never repeated."

Within the framework of that statement, coming from such a source, is a very clear message and one that must be heeded if rugby is not to continue to get headlines for all the wrong reasons.

With regard to the changes in the laws, these now come into effect for the forthcoming Six Nations Championship and the Heineken Cup and will operate in the Tri-Nations series. It will be a decision for each union to decide whether or not to implement the new laws domestically. The IRFU will bring them into operation.

The change that has got most attention is the "sin bin". It has got a very broad welcome. The change should not cause any undue difficulty in Ireland or for Irish players. The "sin bin" has been in operation here in the Interprovincial Series and the AIB League for the past two seasons.

In the past, a white card was issued for deliberate and repeated infringement here, the yellow card for foul play. Since the start of the season the white card has not been in operation. Now it is a yellow card for foul play and repeated infringement; then a 10-minute spell on the sideline. Let us hope now as we await the start of the Six Nations Championship and the implementation of the "sin bin" in it, that referees do not hesitate to use their powers to cut out gamesmanship and cheating.

Rugby has often been accused of being too slow to change laws it has been said that the process by which they were changed was too cumbersome. There is some truth in that. No doubt some of what we saw in the World Cup concentrated minds. A very thorough evaluation of what took place in the Five Nations, Tri Nations and World Cup series was undertaken.

There was consultation with the national coaches, national directors of rugby and the referees. The "sin bin" apart the changes come in the scrum, the line-out and the tackle.

There were some very revealing statistics that prompted the new law in relation to scrummaging. That change has been summed up as "lose it or use it", akin to what operates with regard to the static maul. Under the new order at scrums, when teams fail to produce the ball after feeding the scrum they run the risk of losing the put-in by wheeling or causing the scrum to be reset.

Those who changed the law had before them a revealing statistic. During the recent World Cup there were 148 five-metre scrums. Of these 98 had to be reformed, 59 were actually collapsed and 84 were wheeled. Those statistics told their own tale and promoted the new law. There was also a belief, and it was correct, that the amount of time taken up at the scrums was far too long. The new law, if properly applied, will cut down gamesmanship in this area.

The change in the tackle law is also most welcome and should help stop the killing of the ball and reduce the number of players going to ground. A defender must join the contest for the ball from behind the player nearest their own goal-line.

Jumpers at the line-out can now be supported before the ball is thrown in and the players who peel off from the line out can do so in a wider arc.

The changes are designed to create more space and to free up the game. The last World Cup certainly accentuated the need for change. Too often the game was becoming one of yardage with the concentration on defence rather than attack.

The changes are not of such a nature as to cause problems for those with the wit and the will to play within them or for referees to operate them.