Time to safe-guard interests of supporter

Congratulations to Craig Joubert for bringing some sanity to the World Cup and for saving it from possible disaster.

The tournament could not have come through another refereeing controversy without sustaining a severe hit to its standing as one of the most enticing global sports events. Given what had transpired in Wellington last Sunday and again at Eden Park the night before, it was understandable that Joubert should have been a subject of much discussion in the build-up to the second semifinal.

The consensus appeared to be that the South African is the best referee on the circuit, so there was confidence the All Black/Australia game would provide a winner that was not blighted by insinuations of outside help. The best team definitely won, and Joubert, by blowing strictly, fairly and to the rules interpretations from the outset, ensured that this was so.

I did hear an Australian journalist muttering something about Joubert not refereeing the same way that the previous Sunday’s game had been refereed. And he was right, only last week was the wrong way and this week, with David Pocock being prevented from getting away with murder at the breakdowns, was the right way.

It meant that the All Blacks were able to get reward on the scoreboard when they applied pressure. It is true that Bryce Lawrence refereed the same way for both teams last week, but as forcing penalties by applying penalties is such a big part of rugby, it was always going to be the attacking team that would suffer from his willingness to let everything go at the breakdown.

The All Black semifinal and the way having a decent referee officiating facilitated a fair game made me even more convinced that the Boks were robbed and should have been in this playoff, even though the way the All Blacks played I am not nearly as convinced as others are that the South Africans would have gone all the way. The Kiwis looked close to invincible in that opening quarter.

The point though is that Lawrence robbed the tournament of seeing the best teams clash in the semi. Because of that we will never know how a game between the Boks and All Blacks would have turned out, which leaves the same question marks over the eventual winner that we saw at the end of the 2007 tournament, which the Boks won without playing the Wallabies or Kiwis.

It is though the Welsh who should feel most aggrieved, for they were shaping as the possible team of the tournament before they were undone by a questionable refereeing decision that saw them reduced to 14 men after just 18 minutes.

I know that an IRB disciplinary committee has just suspended Sam Warburton for three weeks and thus they have found him guilty, but then what would you expect? The heavy handed way the IRB has dealt with the tweeting misdemeanours of a disaffected Samoan player sends out its own message about how tolerant they are of anything that threatens them.

The merits of the red card can be debated. I agree with Wales coach Warren Gatland that Warburton’s challenge was not malicious, and he certainly didn’t forcefully drive Vincent Clerq’s head into the ground. It was a clumsy challenge, no more than that, and at best should have been a yellow card offence.

Sending a player off at such an early stage of a World Cup semifinal is such a big call to make, and Rolland made it far too quickly considering the gravity of the impact it would have on the game. It appeared that his mind was made up by the sight of Clerq lying on the ground and the truculent reaction of the French.

Wales have as much or even more right to feel they were robbed than the Springboks did given the impact that a sending off has on a game. Considering how close Wales came and how well they played even though they were at a disadvantage, they would certainly have won had it remained 15 against 15.

But it is not whether Rolland’s call was right or wrong that bugs me, for if truth were to be told, the whole issue of yellow and red carding has irritated me for a long time. Rugby matches are supposed to be about 15 players playing against 15 and while a real heinous crime ought to be punished, there are so many petty and marginal ones that bring about a consequence to the game that is not commensurate with the severity of the transgression.

In rugby league they have a system whereby a player goes on report if he is guilty of an offence. He remains on the field, but gets sanctioned afterwards, when all the facts can be looked at and dealt with properly. If the player is found guilty, he is either fined or suspended.

This system ensures that rugby league matches are always about 13 players playing against 13, and the interest of the supporter and the other stakeholders who want to see a fair contest are looked after. It needs to be considered by rugby union as a means to safeguard the interests of supporters, some of whom spend a fortune to travel across the world to watch a World Cup.