Link to full article with clips
There was anger in South Africa at three decisions by George Clancy, the Irish referee who refereed the match in Perth between Australia and South Africa.
But then there is often anger in South Africa - and not only South Africa - when a team loses.
After all this, SA, is the land of Piet van Zyl. Then there was the referee who was beaten up in a club carpark and ended up in intensive care and the assault on a referee by a schoolboy, amongst other such cases of more than verbal abuse.
It is the land where television commentators fuel the fires of anger with what they say on referees' decisions, often erroneously.
Just let's look at the controversial trio from Saturday's match. Really there are two, as two of them are closely related.
1. The Duane Vermeulen Tackle (see clip below):
James Slipper Australia has the ball and charges ahead, but Duane Vermeulen of South Africa goes forward to meet him and tackles him to the ground.
The referee initially said that Vermeulen had tackled high - that he had started properly but then 'come up over the top'. There were replays which show that Vermeulen's arm or arms were correctly used in the tackle, did not slip up, did not come over the top and did not make contact with Slipper above the line of the shoulders.
When questioned by the South African captain Jean de Villiers, the referee added that Vermeulen had not moved away in the tackle. The lateness of that gave the appearance of a referee trying to justify a penalty at all. His immediate reaction was that the tackle was high, which it was not.
This had shades of the horrible decision in New Zealand last year when Bismarck du Plessis was sent off for a heavy tackle on Daniel Carter, a tackle which every sensible body later acknowledged was a fair tackle.
It's one thing for a referee not to see something but a far more serious fault to see what is not there.
2. De Villiers Tackled (see clip below):
South Africa attack and Jean de Villiers carries the ball some 10 metres or more inside the Australian 22 where he is tackled high by lock Rob Simmons. Simmons's left hand/arm makes immediate contact with De Villiers's neck. The referee allows for advantage and then Simmons is penalised but not spoken to and no TMO replay is requested.
3. Habana Carded (see clip below):
Australia attack and Adam Ashley-Cooper gets the ball and charges well inside the South African 22 where he is tackled by left wing Bryan Habana whose left hand/arm makes immediate contact with Ashley-Cooper's neck. The referee immediately blows his whistle and immediately his hand goes to his right pocket, suggesting that he is about to produce a card, yellow or red. His assistant referee, a New Zealand Test referee whose name is Mike Fraser, immediately makes contact with Clancy and suggests to him that he should review the situation as it may be just a penalty - in other words no yellow card.
Jean de Villiers, aware that a yellow card is imminent, comes across to Clancy and reminds him that this was similar to the tackle on him "10 minutes ago", as is described above.
The referee asks for a replay and looks at it. His assistant again suggests that there should be penalty but not a yellow card but the referee puts his hand into his right pocket for a yellow card and sends Habana to the sin bin where he was sitting when Australia scored the try which won the match - a sad throne for one of rugby's kings in his 100th match.
These are our cases - the tackles by Bismarck du Plessis last year and Duane Vermeulen this year. We have now had similar actions by two of rugby's top officials in the same competition between two of rugby's top teams - Romain Poite in 2013 and George Clancy in 2014.
And you ask yourself why. Why would top men make what seem to be gross errors?
Perhaps they did not make mistakes, though in Poite's case refereeing authorities said he had erred and he admitted that he had erred and spent some time without a top match to referee.
The same has not happened - yet - in the case of Clancy, who may, therefore, not have erred. And yet it would seem that Vermeulen did not tackle high and there was no consistency in the treatment of two high tackles - one on De Villiers and one on Ashley-Cooper.
There may be some subtle difference that is not immediately discernable.
South Africans believe that there is a conspiracy against them, that referees gang up and treat them more harshly than they do other teams.
And always they say something that starts with "If Bakkies had done that..."
Surely there is no conspiracy, but perhaps there is a homemade problem that gives impetus to a form of prejudice.
Overseas lawmen see South African rugby as lawless, the bad lands of the rugby world. They see assaults on referees, physical as well as verbal, as above all a South African problem - from Paddy O'Brien's need for a bodyguard before a Test to Dave McHugh's assault during a Test.
They also see what happens after a sending off or a citing as significant. They see Craig Joubert, one of the world's best referees, give Jonathan Francke a red card when he lifted SP Marais off the ground. They see Marais vertical to the ground and then landing on his head and shoulders. And then they are told that the judiciary decided not to suspend Francke.
They see a player charge with his shoulder at an opponent's head and a teammate grab the same opponent round the neck and pull him to ground, and then the shoulder man is not cited and the neck man is suspended for a week though the judiciary clearly believed that it was all an accident that the opponent had had his neck broken.
And those are just two recent incidents but they have an impact.
Add to that the way the referees do their preparation in which they try to suss out areas of possible trouble, and South Africa's physicality is a case in point.
Then each team's management has a session with the referee in which they can explain that what they do is not wrong but point out the things that opponents do that are wrong.
Then onto the field the referee goes to make decisions in this emotional, fast game and is required to process information at a nearly impossible rate.
Perhaps it is a job beyond a single man.
Add to that that the TMO is now becoming a video operator and has less and less say in a decision, and the referee has reduced an important source of help - though the impression that Clancy gave was that his mind had already been made up.
There is an excuse that the referee did not have the advantage of hindsight and the slow-motion replay. In these instances that was available.
Perhaps somebody should take the two-referee system seriously. Perhaps pre-match meetings between management and referee should be stopped. Perhaps South Africa should bring its judiciary into line with the rest of the world. Perhaps the guilty plea should not lead to an automatic halving of the suspension which also takes good behaviour into account.
Perhaps the desire to get rid of illegal play should intensify.
But perhaps too, rugged, physical play should be encouraged and lauded provided it is within the scope of the laws of the game.
By Paul Dobson
