Removing human error is key

Oops! No sooner have I written a column on how untouchable referees are than along comes some yobbo to prove the exact opposite.

Saturday's incident was deplorable. Already regarded as the hijack capital of the world and a haven for criminals, do we now want South Africa to be regarded as the place where referees are attacked?

It is also disturbing to note the support the culprit has received from some sections of the South African public and even the media. You feel what Pieter van Zyl was right to do what he did? Well, then why don't we just drop all pretence at being a normal, civilised society and let the "might is right" philosopy take over once and for all.

Van Zyl should have the book thrown at him both by rugby officials and officers of the law, as well as the normal law abiding rugby fan. What he did cannot be condoned and it did untold harm to both the reputation of SA Rugby and the country as a whole.

Having said all that, it is sometimes instructive to look at the world through the eyes of the criminal. We know enough about Van Zyl to be able to make a few assumptions about his day out at the rugby.

Firstly, it cannot be denied that like many South Africans, he cares deeply for the Springboks and is passionate about the team. If he were not, he would not have travelled all the way from Potchefstroom for the game.

Knowing that he came from Potch tells us a few other things about his weekend. Let's assume that he flew to Durban. That would mean he spent R1500 to get there (if you take wear and tear into account, it would not be much less if he drove). Unless he was staying with family, he could have spent anywhere between R250 and R800 for each of the two nights he would have spent in the city - okay, on Saturday night he lodged on the tax-payers expense account, but he would still have had to pay for his hotel room.

As Nick Mallett would tell you, rugby tickets these days are also not cheap. If he was alone he might have forked out another R350 for a place in the cheap seats. If his wife was with him, we start looking at something in the region of R700. Then you have to add things like meals and, yes, let's not deny it, his drink account. We are talking about a figure of perhaps in the region of R3000 for Mr Van Zyl's weekend following the Boks.

The point of all of this is that he, like all the other fans in the stadium and watching the match on television, was a consumer who had a right to be incensed that once again a match, and the Bok chances of scoring a much needed victory, appeared to be ruined by the referee. Maybe the high tackle on Tana Umaga which led to the penalty try was marginal. It was a 50/50 call by Dave McHugh and as many neutral observers would say he got it right as would say he got it wrong.

But the decision to disallow the Breyton Paulse try was typical of the South African tendency to get the wrong rub of the green. Later in the game, when thanks to Van Zyl there was another referee on the field, the Boks were denied what looked another legitimate try to Marius Joubert. The ball came off an All Black, not a Springbok hand, as was adjudged to be the case by Chris White.

That is a swing of at least 14 points against the Boks, and it could have been as high as 21. Quite apart from the playing careers and coaching careers which are at stake and risked by these decisions, as discussed in my last column, there were also several thousand people who had forked out good money to see a fair contest and once again had it ruined by the man with the whistle.

While we have to condemn Van Zyl for his actions, there are few South Africans who can deny that when McHugh blew his whistle on those two occasions in the first half, they felt themselves almost boil over with frustration. It would be understandable if those who also sat through the telecasts of the Stuard Dickinson/Steve Lander shows in previous matches felt they were being robbed of something.

After the game there was a lot of comment called for from the media. Officials seemed unanimous - the only way you can be 100% certain that this sort of vile abomination is not repeated is to place barbed wire around the field. That is not something they want to do.

But there is another, far more palatable option which I cannot believe they have missed. Why not avoid the controversies by taking human error out of the game by using the technology that is available?

They do it in Rugby League, where the attacking team has a 10 second window before a referee consults the television monitor. In that code, which has been professional for far longer than union, no-one has any problem with the hold-ups as match officials go back to make absolutely sure that the final decision will be a fair one.

Had McHugh been able to consult the television official on Saturday, he would not have had to endure this embarrasment. Neither would South Africa and South African rugby. Indeed, everyone would have been far happier - both those who get paid to play the game and those who pay to watch it.