“If Lawrence, as touch judge, is incapable of linking the vileness of an act occurring two feet away and the proper sanction of a red card, he is not fit to officiate,” wrote Moore in his Telegraph column.

However Lawrence has been backed up by New Zealand’s high performance referee manager Lyndon Bray, himself a former top whistler. “In terms of law, the ref is the guy who has to ultimately make the decision and I fully back what Bryce did,” Bray said.

In this respect, Bray is right and Moore is wrong. The ultimate decision should be, and was, left to Berdos who decided on a yellow card. In fact, Lawrence actually strayed from protocol in making his recommendation.

Assistant referees have drummed into them that they are there to assist the referee and that ultimately he is in charge and is quite within his rights to overrule even both assistants. In fact, assistant referees are specifically told not to give the referee a recommendation unless he asks for one.

In this particular incident it appeared that Berdos did not fully understand what Lawrence was relaying to him as he appeared to be awarding only a penalty until called back by Lawrence. Watch the video, Berdos goes to move away but Lawrence pulls him back with his recommendation of “at least a yellow card.”

It appears that this all boils down to the language barrier as what Lawrence said was referee-speak for, “You didn’t ask for a recommendation but if you had it would be a red card.” Perhaps a native English speaker would have picked up on this.

Going back two Lions’ tours when the Lions met the Waratahs in a game which featured as many brawls as tries, Waratahs’ fullback Duncan McRae was sent off for repeatedly punching a prone Ronan O’Gara on a touch judge’s recommendation. In that situation referee Scott Young after hearing the report from touch judge Stu Dickenson asked, “Are you recommending a red card?” to which Dickenson replied, “Yes I am.”

Now that is not to absolve the officials of blame here because regardless of the issues there were communicating, there would be few, except Peter de Villiers, who would argue Burger deserved less than a red card. But let’s remember that it is the referee, not his assistants who have the final say on sanctions for players and perhaps Christophe Berdos should be copping the brunt of the flack, not Bryce Lawrence.

The incident has completely overshadowed what was a magnificent test and when fans should be talking about how it was the most exciting game of rugby played this year, instead we are comparing bans for similar offenses and discussing de Villiers’s moronic comments.

First of all I want to look at how the officials handled it, as they have come under a bit of fire. Assistant referee Bryce Lawrence spotted the offense after just 32 seconds and correctly put his flag out and reported the incident to referee Christophe Berdos. Language difficulties meant Berdos, whose English is sub par to be refereeing at this level, was originally going to award only a penalty against Berger. Lawrence then informed him that this sort of offense warrants “at least a yellow card.”

This sort of thing from an assistant referee annoys me because he’s really wimping out, Lawrence doesn’t want to make the decision for Berdos but at the same time is trying to guide him to the right decision. Secondly officials seem to have an aversion to dishing out a red card early in games as it essentially ends the contest but sometimes this is the right thing to do. This is why I like guys like George Ayoub, they aren’t afraid to make the decisions.

Now on to de Villier’s dickheadedness. After the game de Villiers told reporters that he didn’t think it should have been a card at all. Rugby’s three greatest sins are boots to an opponent’s head, biting and gouging, even if unintentional these are all severely frowned upon and to suggest that Burger should have been allowed to remain on the field is lunacy of the highest level.

After watching the footage again de Villiers changed his tune slightly, claiming that Burger didn’t do it on purpose and that he is “an honourable man”. Looking at the footage as a neutral I think you’d have to be pretty one eyed to think Burger didn’t do what he did on purpose, but then again look at what his coach is saying.

De Villiers went even further trying to claim that the Lions were somehow soft or that foul play was somehow part of the game. “It is a contact sport and so is dancing. Guys who can’t take it, let’s go to the nearest ballet shop and get some tutus”, De Villiers said.

Finally, to complete the utterly psychotic circle, de Villiers has issued a joint press statement with SARU president Oregan Hoskins saying, “We would like to apologise to the rugby community for the erroneous impression that acts of foul play are in any way condoned by South African rugby. That has never been the case and is not now, and we support strong action by rugby authorities when such acts occur.”

Really? Because the pathetic eight week ban is a slap on the wrist over what should be a very serious charge. Just for comparison, Italian captain Sergio Parisse was also given an eight week ban at the weekend for eye gouging, but in his case the citing commissioner accepted his defense that it was accidental, Burger’s case had no such mitigating factors.

Before the tour potential Lion’s flanker Alan Quinlan received a 12 week ban for eye gouging, while Fijian winger Seru Rabeni, who plays for Gloucester, received 14 weeks for the same offense. In fact, according to the IRB regulations, the recommended minimum sanction for “contact with the eye or eye area” is 12 weeks.

So it seems we have a perfect storm of incompetence all around, officials getting it wrong on the field, judical officer give an absurdly light punishment, and a coach defending the indefensible.

But perhaps I should leave the final word to Sir Clive “I sucked all the fun out of the last Lion’s tour” Woodward who said, “Eye gouging is usually picked up by the camera. If a referee or touch judge sees an eye gouging incident, you’ve got to go straight off the field, just a red card.” He then couldn’t resist bringing up old ghosts, “In my last tour we lost O’Driscoll after one minute and you should have had the same situation of losing a top player here.”

But this sort of sabre rattling from NZRU headquarters is actually extremely unhelpful as there are a number of very good reasons why Christchurch fans are staying away in their droves. Firstly there’s the reconstruction of AMI Stadium which currently has a half built stand on one side of the ground. Throughout the Super 14 and even during the summer’s cricket matches there has been a lack of atmosphere in the ground, largely because one side is completely open.

But the most compelling argument heard from most people is the quality of the opposition. Why should the rugby public pay full price for a game between the world’s number 1 ranked team and a team ranked number 12? And all the while the NZRU are exporting our biggest rivalry, with Australia, to exotic locations like Hong Kong, Tokyo and Denver.

Christchurch can lay claim to being poorly treated by the NZRU, having not hosted a Tri-Nations game since 2007 when the Springboks played here and have missed out on Bledisloe Cup games since 2006. Instead we have been served a sub standard England team with a side of Italy and we’re supposed to be grateful for this according to the NZRU’s verbal slap down.

Tew is known for having excellent business sense but in what business do you blame your customers when they are no longer interested in your product? Can you imagine the meetings? “Our customers not longer find our product interesting, entertaining or compelling which is clearly all their fault.”

Quite frankly the arrogance coming out of the NZRU is one of the factors which is turning off the New Zealand rugby public and it’s something that needs to be addressed. Take a look at the recent survey of rugby fans and perhaps listen to what they have to say.

The rugby public are turned off by the constant turnover of players, the recent inept performances and these rubbish incoming tests in June with substandard opponents. Quite frankly, rugby in New Zealand is in need of a serious overhaul and right now the people at the NZRU are not the people to do it.

Now there is the usual public wailing and gnashing of teeth, as well as the coaching staff coming under intense scrutiny. This is not helped by the whispers going around that the coaching staff were to be reappointed through until the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

But with an injury list a mile long, is it time to panic just yet? Losing senior players like Richie McCaw, Ali Williams, Rodney So’oialo and Sitavini Sivivatu leaves the team in a bit of a hole for leadership. Throw in the absence of game breakers Dan Carter, Conrad Smith and Richard Kahui and it’s not exactly surprising to see the team struggle across the park.

There are a number of issues facing the 2009 incarnation of the All Blacks, but the most pressing one can be summed up in three words: lack of depth.

We’ve known for a number of years that our stocks at first five and openside flanker, two key positions, have been quite weak with those stuck behind incumbents Dan Carter and Richie McCaw leaving for overseas contracts and this was shown up once again on Saturday night.

Adam Thompson, while a fantastic player in his own right, is not an international opensiders, being consistently beaten to the breakdown by his French opposite. In fact, those playing close attention at home will have notice the entire All Black loose forward trio that played on Saturday are specialist blindsiders.

Then we have the debacle that is first five. Stephen Donald showed once again that he just isn’t up to the job at the international level even after a stellar Super 14 season. His hurried understudy, Luke McAlister, looked very much like a player who hasn’t played in three months and one wonders about the wisdom of bringing him straight into the All Blacks without a game since April.

Perhaps it could be argued that the coaching staff is doing the best they can with limited resources, and this certainly seems like a sound argument. But those resources are the same ones who will be playing the rest of the Iveco series against France and Italy, and that could prove a bigger challenge than it looks on paper.

Right, on to the topic at hand. Listening to Doug Golightly this morning where I heard the suggestion that should Sonny Bill Williams perform well for the Barbarians against the Wallabies, he should be brought into an Air New Zealand Cup team and fast tracked into the All Blacks for the end of year tour.

On the surface this might seem like a sensible suggestion but I remain unconvinced. I haven’t seen any of Sonny Bill’s games for Toulon since he changed codes, but he is a tremendously skilled player and could well be a star in the All Blacks, should he adapt.

But are we really crying out for another centre? Sure there are some short term injury worries right now with Richard Kahui out for six months and Conrad Smith struggling with a hamstring injury, but in the long term there are plenty of options in the mid field without taking a punt on an unproven league convert.

Even if Kahui and Smith are unable to make the Tri Nations squad, the solution is already presented by slotting the returning Luke MacAlister into 12 and moving Ma’a Nonu out to 13. Don’t forget there’s also Isea Toeava waiting in the wings too.

Some talkback callers also questioned Sonny Bill’s commitment, given the way he walked out on his Bulldogs’ contract. Personally I think walking out was a dumb move, but given the right environment, he could well mature mentally and emotionally to the point where he could easily slot into the All Blacks.

Perhaps Sonny Bill’s path to the All Blacks needs to go through Christchurch. If he is truly serious about playing for the All Blacks, then perhaps the NZRU should sign him to the Crusaders for the 2010 Super 14. Why the Crusaders? Firstly with the loss of Casey Laulala they are in need of a good centre, but the biggest reason is that the Crusaders’ culture places the team ahead of the individual, something I think Williams would benefit from.

I would love to see Sonny Bill in the All Blacks one day, perhaps even by the 2011 World Cup, but he doesn’t need to be fast tracked. He needs time to adapt to the new game and time to mature. Let him continue to play in Toulon but at the very least make him play the 2011 Super 15 season before bringing him up to the All Blacks. Centre is not a position where we need to fast track players, what we need are first fives like MacAlister and openside flankers to back up Richie McCaw. Now where’s Marty Holah’s number?

The key difference between my proposal and the new format is the six team playoff system, where the three conference champions and three wild card teams make the playoffs. The top ranked conference winners receive a first round bye in the playoffs, while the rest battle it out in elimination finals.

One question which hasn’t been answered anywhere that I’ve read is how the rankings will work to determine the first round of elimination finals. Will the teams be ranked according to their competition points? Or will the lowest ranked conference winner be ranked above the wild card teams?

Here’s an example from this year’s tournament. South African Conference champions are the Bulls, Australian Conference the Waratahs and New Zealand conference the Chiefs, wild cards go to the Hurricanes, Crusaders and Sharks. The Bulls and Chiefs are the top two ranked conference winners and get a first round bye, so the question is: Would the Waratahs be ranked above the Crusaders and Hurricanes because they won their conference, or would the Hurricanes and Crusaders be ranked third and fourth due to their competition points?

The only other difference from my proposal is the fact that teams will only play four of the five teams from the other two conferences in regular season play, eight games instead of ten. Do we need a full round robin system? No, and as always the cream will rise to the top. Notice the six teams who would make the playoffs under this system? Notice where they are on the points table? First through sixth, funny that.

Since the details are yet to be announced, here’s how I would structure the Super 15 if I were in charge. First detail to get out of the way, where does the 15th team come from? The obvious answer would be Australia, probably Melbourne, which gives all three nations involved five teams each.

There is the obvious argument against expansion, particularly as all three nations have at least one team who seem to be perennial stragglers, such as the Reds, Cheetahs and Highlanders, but for the purposes of this proposal, I’m ignoring that.

First off, split the teams into geographic based conferences.

What purpose do these conferences serve? Two purposes, firstly we want to see more derby games, more rivalries and a bit of provincial pride for these teams so I propose that each team plays the other four teams in their conference twice, once at home and once on the road. That makes up eight games of the schedule. The question then is, would organizers want a true round robin tournament where everyone plays everyone else, or can some regular season fixtures be dropped in favour of an expanded playoff format?

I see no reason not to go for the full round robin, leaving teams to play 10 inter-conference games for a total of 18 regular season games. This also tailors to the request from the broadcasters for more games, a total of five more games per team or 45 additional fixtures.

Then comes the tricky matter of who makes the playoffs, and this is where I use the conferences once again. Take the top two teams from each conference, they’re in. Then compare the remaining nine teams and take the top two regardless of which conference they are in, call these the wild card teams.

Now rank these teams one through eight, with the conference winners automatically in the top three regardless of points, and play a single elimination playoff system. That is to say, quarter finals, semi finals and a grand final. Or use one of the excellent alternatives to this such as the NRL’s McIntyre System or the AFL’s modified version of this system.

Let’s look at this year’s table and how it would pan out under this system:

South Africa would have the Bulls and Sharks through, Australia the Waratahs and Brumbies, New Zealand has the Chiefs and Hurricanes though while the Crusaders and Force claim the wild card spots.

Seedings

Now notice that the Waratahs are seeded above the Hurricanes and Crusaders, despite having fewer points or a worse points differential, that’s because they would be Australian Conference Champions and as such, entitled to a seeding of no worse than third. We would then be looking forward to four quarter finals in Pretoria, Hamilton, Sydney and Wellington this weekend and all three nations would be guaranteed representation.

What do you think? Should I sell this idea to SANZAR and retire to a tropical island?

The Waratahs sit on 41 points, currently third, and have a points differential of +29. However the teams around them are yet to play this weekend. The Hurricanes have 39 points and a points differential of +92 so can make the semi finals with a draw against the Reds, although given current form it seems far more likely that they will claim a bonus point win.

Then we have the Crusaders on 37 points with a points differential of +31, which means a win without a bonus point against the Blues tonight would put them above the Waratahs on points difference.

Then we have a final game of the round between the Bulls and Sharks, which depending on other results could be a do or die game for the Sharks, or a dead rubber. The Sharks have 36 points and a points differential of +44, so should the Cruaders win, without a bonus point and by 13 points or fewer, a Sharks bonus point win would see them in the semi finals.

For the Bulls, on 42 points, their semi final spot is sewn up, it’s just a matter of what position they end up occupying. Even a loss to the Sharks without scoring a bonus point would see them finish no worse than fourth.

Essentially, the playoff picture hinges almost entirely on the Crusaders v Blues game. A bonus point win by the Crusaders seals up the top four as the Chiefs, Bulls, Hurricanes and Crusaders, while anything else sees the door left slightly open for Sharks and Waratahs. One thing is for sure, it’s going to be fun!

Attack

Well that almost looks like the points table, except what are the Blues doing in there? Even though they have no chance of making the semi finals, they have the third best attacking record in the tournament. Then there’s the Crusaders, who can secure a semi final spot with a bonus point win over the Blues, but sit eleventh in terms of attack. While it does help to have a good attcking team, it doesn’t guarantee success.

Defence

That’s a bit more like it.Those sitting in four of the top five spots are still in contention for the playoffs, although the Hurricanes sit nineth in this stat, which is something of a surprise.

Finally, what happens if we combine the two:

It would appear that this is the one. The seven teams remaining in contention for the playoffs occupy the top eight places, with the Force, who fell out of contention last week, rounding out the top eight.

The Blues high position in attack but low position in defence, overall margin and the table shows that all out attack without a good defence is useless, while the high ranking of the Crusaders and Waratahs in the defensive stats shows that the old cliche: defence wins championships is still true today.

So perhaps this confirms what we’ve always known about rugby: a good attack is nice, but a good defence is better and if you can have both then your team could be a title contender.

I refereed rugby almost every weekend for 10 years before I got fed up with some of the politics of appointments and left for football (soccer). Although I am now a football referee at the weekends, I continue to referee secondary school rugby on a Wednesday afternoon.

Typically most football players want to argue decisions out on the field, from just a glare in the general direction right up to shouting at the referee. What I have found so far in my career as a football referee is that most of the management techniques I learned in rugby, from a quiet word asking for cooperation up to strangling a game with the whistle, simply don’t have any effect on some players.

The answer to why that is seems to be cultural. In football is seems all referees are assumed to be blind and incompetant until they prove themselves otherwise.

Now in rugby, referees are held in high esteem, partly because without a trained referee teams cannot play contested scrums in New Zealand. And I can back this up with an example from yesterday.

One team was complaining that their opponents were using their hands in the ruck frequently, and they were and I was pinging them whenever I saw it. Now as part of my pre-match briefing I tell captains they can ask me a question at the appropriate time but to make sure what they say is a question, so when I gave a scrum to the team in possession for an unplayable tackle and the captain complains that there were hands in there again, I told her to pipe down.

Her protest, “But they are using their hands,” annoyed me and I decided to take action: A long blast on the whistle and a penalty against her, then I pointed straight at her and said, “You will not tell me how to referee this game!” And guess what? Didn’t her another complaint from her or her teammates for the rest of the game.

That’s not to say there way no communication, she asked me a couple of questions during the game, with regards to a couple of offside and advantage decisions, and I was able to work with her to solve an issue with flankers detaching early from the scrum.

Would I have gotten the same result on the football field? I very much doubt it, in fact I likely would have been swarmed by player and likely booked more than one of them for that behaviour.

As rugby referees we are taught to be the 31st man on the field, but also told there are times you need to be number 1, in football you are the 23rd man on the field and always will be, even when you try to get on top of players. And perhaps that also answer the question of why football struggles for referees despite having more players than rugby, while rugby is able to provide referees to games involving kids as young as 11.