As a general rule I watch the rugby not the referee.

This of course doesn’t mean that I don’t shout at the referee (even in front of the TV knowing pretty well that he can’t hear me) when he makes mistakes. I can see when the referee has a bad game and of course I get upset but I am, as a spectator, more interested in how we play; what do we do with the ball; our structures and systems at the tackle ball; our game tactics; what is the script we are following; our defensive patterns; are we showing improvement on previous games in areas we didn’t do well; how is our scrum going; are we using starter moves; running angles of the backline; how well is No10 dictating the match and where does he take up position behind the scrums, at rucks and line-outs and so forth.

A consequence of all that is that I tend to reflect more on why didn’t we get things right or what went wrong and what can we improve on, independent of whether we lose or win after the match. 

I don’t do referee bashing.

My life philosophy is NO BLAMING is allowed. Take full responsibility for everything in your life.

As an athlete or a coach I believe that is the only way you can move forward. Focus on things you can control and don’t get emotional about things which are out of your control. As a team you can control how you go into contact, how well you protect the ball, whether you go to ground or stay upright as you go into contact, whether you actually go into contact or avoid it by reverting to off-loads or attacking space. You also have the choice how you go about your business on the field. If the referee starts penalizing you (or does’nt penalize the opposition) you have a choice whether you persist with a strategy which kept the referee’s decision making -in that particular facet of the game- in play or not.

Australia made 147 tackles against South Africa on the weekend, relying on defence to soak up everything the Springboks could throw at them.

The general rule is more tackles equals more penalties and before the quarter-final Australia’s tackle / penalty ratio stood at 8.3 tackles per penalty.

In the build-up to the match, Australia was well aware that the Wallabies had to tighten up in this area against the Springboks. “Morné Steyn’s a fantastic kicker,” said the captain. “You’ve got to be aware that their goal-kicking ability is pretty strong across the board. You can’t give away silly penalties to allow them three points at goal.”

True to Horwill’s word and despite being under immense pressure from the Springboks in their own half for the majority of the match (South Africa claimed 76 per cent of territory) Australia conceded just six penalties at a ratio of 24.5 tackles per penalty, almost three times better than their tournament average.

Astonishingly, with South Africa desperately chasing a result, Australia’s ratio was 42.5 tackles per penalty in the second half, a statistic that illustrated just how well the Wallabies dealt with the pressure yet still managed to starve the Springboks of opportunities.

Most importantly, when Australia conceded penalties they did so in relatively safe areas. Of the six penalties they gave to South Africa, one was kicked for touch from well inside their own half, one was kicked to touch for a lineout on Australia’s five-metre line, two were successfully kicked and two were just outside Steyn’s range on halfway.

Australia’s discipline was so strong and their tactics so successful that even with 84 per cent of first half territory South Africa did not get their first points on the board, a Steyn penalty, until the 39th minute. The Springboks had never had to wait longer for points in an RWC match.

Despite the penalty risks involved, the Wallabies still went after the breakdown, with Pocock – whose performance Robbie Deans later described as “immense” and “bigger than he got credit for” – the key man in contesting possession at the tackle area.

He was a constant thorn in South Africa’s side, combining precise timing and strong body positioning to spoil plenty of Springboks’ ball. Most notably, Australia could boast a handful of turnovers from inside their own 22, and Pocock was responsible for at least three of them.

Now you can use those statistics to argue how poor the referee actually was on the day. That sort of turnaround in tackle/penalty ratio is astounding and one cannot but wonder about the referee’s influence on it.

One has to ask how much credit can the Wallabies really take for that turnaround and how much of the credit need to go to the referee. Considering the amount of criticism dished out to Bryce Lawrence form all possible corners of the rugby world it is clear that the Wallabies can’t take all the credit for that remarkable turnaround.

However, it is interesting to note that as part of this strategy to reduce the amount of penalties at the tackle they also made sure that Lawrence got severely criticized in the media for the way he refereed the Australia / Ireland game.

They attacked the problem from two angles, their own play on the park; but also by putting pressure on the referee.

Now listen to John Smit after the match: “We decided to be brave and keep the ball and you’d normally be rewarded as an attacking team, but it wasn’t quite that way tonight. It’s the first time I have lost a game on the scoreboard and won it every other way from a stats point of view.”

They knew they were playing the best ball pilfering flanker in the tournament yet they decided to run the ball at them. Not only that… they persisted with it. Even worse they kept on utilizing their possession in a way that played into the hands of the Pocock and the Australian team and which kept the referee’s inability to adjudicate the tackle ball in play.

The Springboks were reluctant to try anything different in attack. They opted for physical and direct ball-carrying, in narrow channels, even when Australia was clearly tiring.

The lack of invention was costly. Well into the second half, from turnovers in Australia’s 22, Jannie du Plessis, Danie Rossouw and Schalk Burger were guilty of carrying attacking ball into heavy contact when there were better and quicker options wide, outside them.

There is an old truism that states that attack is the best form of defence. So I have no problem with the decision to run with the ball. What I do find disturbing is the inability to change tactics when they saw the referee is allowing Pocock to get away with murder. Also there was ample opportunity to dropkick, so why didn’t they opt for that option when they saw they couldn’t breach the defensive line and / or found they could not force penalties?

So, we find ourselves after the game with a side who decided to take responsibility for certain things and went about doing that even to the extent that the got into the referee’s head and a side who decided to be ‘brave’ and do something they haven’t done for 8 years (since Jake White started working with them) and something they knew is not conducive to finals rugby.

Who took responsibility to produce a certain outcome and who did not? I am not sure I have the answer. All I know is that the tackle / penalty ratio stats quoted here leave me more than uncomfortable with the referee as does the Springboks decision to be ‘brave’.