Rugby: RWC's big boys seem to have rub of the green

Referee Romain Poite flashes a yellow card to England's Owen Farrell (left) but Sam Burgess got a verbal warning at Twickenham against Australia on October 4. PHOTO/AP

I HEAR the Rugby World Cup is about to kick off at Twickenham and Cardiff from early tomorrow morning.

With all the diplomacy, albeit punctuated by the odd game worth waking up for, I was becoming a little restless in the lengthy build-up to rugby's premier stage.

You know, bizarre man-of-the-match awards, top-tier nations sleepwalking their way through 80-minute scrimmages - and how about those mind-boggling disciplinary measures meted out to transgressors? Try as I may, I still can't fathom how a cowardly punch from Irish flanker Sean O'Brien to the stomach of French lock Pascal Pape warranted only a week-long suspension.

O'Brien, reportedly embarrassed as he may be now, showed all the tendencies of daylight thuggery as he moved surreptitiously to execute his gutless act.

And please enlighten me on how a tip-tackle or head-high tackle, often carried out as a reaction at the height of an adrenalin-fuelled act but no doubt dangerous, calls for a three to four-week suspension.

From where I'm standing on a protracted platform of orchestrated entertainment premeditation must make any transgressor more culpable.

Here's another incident from the Australia v England match in the "Pool of Death" that must have baffled many.

In the 70th minute, Englishman Owen Farrell took out ball carrier Matt Giteau and almost simultaneously rugby league convert Sam Burgess put a coat hanger around the neck of Wallaby flanker Michael Hooper.

The referee went to the TMO but, oddly, the pair seemed to have suddenly lost the art of communicating despite the help of modern gadgetry.

It seems when top-tier nations are playing, two acts of dangerous play means officials only have to punish one transgressor and give the other a verbal dressing down from the citing commissioner.

Maybe the RWC disciplinary board is doing its utmost to ensure all the big names remain as drawcards for the playoffs.

It seems as if the "big boys" and "home nations" have had the rub of the green at this cup.

To a certain extent one can understand the frustration of the more aggressive Pacific Island teams who have had the riot act read to them purely on the foundation of their propensity to engage in acts of "ill discipline".

All the above, of course, leads me to how the quarterfinals will play out over the next two days.

Calls of this nature will have colossal impact on the outcome of who will proceed to the semifinals.

Something as ridiculous as the referee perceiving a player to have deliberately slapped away a ball during an act of intercepting a pass will earn the wrongdoer a 10-minute sin-bin spell. You see, it all comes down to the whistleblower's perception of whether the culprit harbours malicious intent.

It definitely isn't because the officials are cheats or on someone's payroll, although some have received gold watches in previous world cups.

I grant that the referees could come under immense pressure to appease a parochial 80,000-plus baying for blood. But therein lies the creditability of a tournament in which premium fans have so far turned a blind eye to incidents because they have been apparently inconsequential.

It's knockout footy now, so every disputable passage of play will be analysed in slow-mo fashion and officials will become scapegoats for losing coaches and captains.

Put another way, professional outfits do not leave their fate in the hands of Wayne Barnes' perception of a forward pass.

Don't flirt with a line pass, do not try to enter a ruck from the wrong side and everything will be hunky-dory.

Put yet another way, love them or loathe them, referees are prone to making mistakes so players must take ownership as architects of their own success or demise.

But then again bashing refs is often part of the entertainment package.