Controversy due to inconsistent refereeing has somewhat marred a homecoming of the Rugby world cup to its original host of 24 years ago and the home of the most successful rugby side in rugby Union history.

The first match affected by this enigma was Wales vs South Africa on 11 September 2011. Referee Wayne Barnes omitted to refer a penalty kick to the TMO for review as the assistant referees were not sure whether the ball went through the posts. In this case the outcome would not have mattered as two time Rugby World Cup final referee Andre Watson stated that the TMO would have needed conclusive evidence that the ball did indeed go through the posts and in this case there was not sufficient evidence.

Later in the match, on the 72 minute mark, referee Wayne Barnes awarded a penalty to Wales when George North tackled Francois Hougaard just outside their 22 and never released the tackled player but continued to hold onto player and ball. In this case Barnes penalised Hougaard for holding onto the ball even though he was not given the opportunity to place the ball.

Fortunately for South Africa the kick missed and thereby averting an injustice. Amongst these questionable decisions South Africa also complained after the match that their understanding of how the break down would
have been refereed would be far stricter and that the “daylight” law would be needed to adhered to in the strictest sense.

The next controversy came courtesy of Bryce Lawrence on the 17^th of September 2011 when a fancied Australian outfit met Ireland at Eden Park. Australia was severely punished by Lawrence at scrum time and after the match Lawrence eventually admitted that he has made several key “blunders” at scrum time and in other areas during the match. Even though the Irish scrum was totally dominant against the Australian scrum there was enough cause for concern in other areas.

On the 18^th of September Alain Rolland officiated a match between Wales and Samoa. Even though popular opinion had it that Rolland was pretty poor for both sides, Samoa felt aggrieved over a trey being
declined due to what the referee saw as a double movement. Captain of Samoa Mahonri Schwalger had this to say “”That was pretty harsh and it might have been the turning point of the game,” Schwalger said. “There’s some things you can’t win and that’s the way it goes. All we can do now is just move on.”

On 30 September 2011 Referee Nigel Owens lost complete control of a do or die match for Samoa when facing South Africa for their last opportunity to make the play offs. In a match that was marred by many off the
ball incidents, Owens eventually red carded Paul Williams son of legendary All Black Bryan Williams for an open handed strike to the face of Heinrich Brussow and then went on two minutes later to sin bin Springbok skipper John Smit for a illegal knock down of a ball on the half way line, which can only be assumed to
be retribution for the red card suggested by the assistant referee on Paul Williams. Unfortunately two wrongs do not make a right, and only further enhanced the opinion that Nigel Owens had lost complete control of the match.

At this point it shouldn’t be a surprise that many fans must have thought pool D was not the pool of death, but rather the pool of Debilitation, effectively hindering teams in this pool to play to their full
potential as a result of inconsistent refereeing at breakdowns, their inability to control the players in these extremely physical match ups and in general presiding over controversial matches whenever South Africa, Wales and Samoa faced each other.

But sadly this would not be the end of the controversy.

In the quarter final match between a South African team who dominated just about every aspect of the game against Australia, Pocock was allowed to rule the breakdown without any fear of consequence, The loss of
Heinrich Brussow after 20 minutes did not help South Africa in gaining any form of control at the breakdowns. Bryce Lawrence must have had noble intentions of allowing play to continue and South Africa as some said should have adapted to the blasé manner in which the breakdowns were officiated.

The problem for them not being able to adapt and win in spite of this was two fold, when Pocock was allowed to enter a ruck 5 meters out from the South African try line 10 minutes into the match, and then proceed to stand in an offside position to kick the ball into the hands of Australia who then went over for the only try of the match, the damage was already done. In a match that was always going to be a match of inches was then further ruined by Australia being able to contest every ruck ball legally or illegally which ever way you saw it. Sadly the South Africans who attained 15 plus phases on 5 occasions were never able to score a try. It is very easy to criticise them and say with 76% of territory and 56% of possession they should have found a way to score, but the fact is when a team spends nigh on 12 minutes in the opponents red zone and pressure is supposed to convert into unorganised defence, it is only possible with quick ball. Unfortunately South Africa was never allowed quick ball because Australia could contest breakdown ball without any fear of prosecution and could there for organise their defences during this time.

Moving on to the semi final between Wales and France, controversy broke out once again after Alain Rolland decided to red card Sam Warburton, inspirational captain for Wales after a tip tackle. Even though this would seem to be a clear cut event many supporters felt that the interpretation of this law regarding when it is deemed that a player has dropped a tackled player without any regard for his safety did not warrant a red card, effectively ruining the match.

When I look at all these incidents it is clear that there are issues that the IRB has to look at and assess. The truth of the matter is whether teams needed to rise above the controversy or not, referees did have an impact on this world cup. I have no doubt in my mind about that.

The question though is, has the game become too fast and too complicated to be officiated by one man in the middle? I for one just want the best team on the day to win. Now I appreciate that referees are only human, and I have no doubt that they are unbiased and go into every match with the approach of being fair and impartial.

I listened to Andre Watson once where he was telling the story of when he was selected for his first international match, having to officiate a match Argentina was to play in. He was told by other referees about the fact that Argentina was just a little too physical and would often transgress with their forwards.

Although he had no intention of being unfair to Argentina and wanted to go into the match with an impartial view, he did have a perception to watch the Argentinean players closely. I often wonder how many
transgressions did he miss from the opposition team that day.

Similarly I question the mindset of Bryce Lawrence when he officiated the match between SA and Australia.
After publically admitting his blunders during Australia’s clash against Ireland, especially after the Australian media put so much emphasis on his performance mere days before the quarter final. He is only
human after all.

But, getting back to the IRB. What are they going to do to ensure the credibility of results in closely fought test matches? Yes there are times when you can disregard the rants of disappointed fans, you can call them sore losers, but it does not take away from the fact that referees have influenced matches in this World Cup.

If I was running the IRB, my first priority would be to find a solution to officiating matches with more consistency and accuracy. It is superfluous to change the laws of the game to ensure faster more attacking
rugby if the person who has to officiate does not have the necessary tools or ability to keep up.

Whether the International rugby board simplifies laws to the point where there are less grey areas, or whether they look at the manner in which matches are officiated, something needs to be done as a matter of urgency.