There has been a well-documented and justifiable frustration flowing through Super Rugby these past few weeks, with players unhappy about the lack of consistency and accuracy they have encountered from officials.
Ardie Savea and Aaron Smith came perilously close to breaking rugby's code of conduct orders about not publiclycriticising referees when they both suggested, in the wake of recent defeats, that the outcome was swayed by poor decision-making.
They weren't suggesting that the officiating was chronically biased or flawed, but they did say that they felt duped in the big moments – let down by human error.
So too has there been universal lament at the volume of red cards, some of which have been the result of a catch-all legislative framework that requires the accidental to be punished on the same punitive terms as the deliberate and nasty.
The narrative has been commanded in such a way as to paint the players as victims of a combination of incompetence and bureaucratic pedantry.
But in addition to highlighting that Melbournians can't find a place in their rich sporting diet for rugby, the Super Round also did much to debunk this myth that the players are blameless in shaping their fate.
In fact, the Super Round did much to suggest that there is an endemic discipline problem on both sides of the Tasman and that as much as players have a right to expect more from referees, it is just as true to say that referees have a right to expect more from players.
There was yet more evidence in Melbourne to refute this growing conviction that the majority of red cards in Super Rugby 2022 would not have been red card offences five years ago.
The spear tackle by Waratahs prop Angus Bell on Sam Cane in the second minute of the opening match would have been a red card at any time in the last two decades.
Angus Bell of the Waratahs on the bench after receiving a red card. Photo / Getty
It was a wild act, ill-disciplined and entirely avoidable, just as Scott Barrett's shoulder charge the week before against the Blues was not something rugby would previously have tolerated.
Bailyn Sullivan was fortunate he was only shown yellow after nine minutes against the Reds when he lifted Hunter Paisami's leg in a tackle and flipped him on his back.
Sullivan was not the victim of overprotective refereeing, but his own poor technique and bad judgment.
No one is coached to lift the ball carrier and while the last few weeks have seen a few contentious decisions that have inspired the "it's political correctness gone mad" brigade, players can't kid themselves they are blameless in this rising tide of cards and penalty counts.
Nowhere was this problem of endemic ill-discipline better illustrated than the ability of the 10 teams to respect the offside line.
Players say they want games to flow and for less intrusive officiating and yet all weekend in Melbourne there was a chronic failure by every team to stay onside and enter rucks from a legal position.
Over the weekend the penalties kept coming and while some of those were due to over eagerness by defenders wanting to get off the line quickly to close the space, just as many were caused by laziness and cynicism.
Ultimately, the reason doesn't matter because at the heart of the issue is a failure to employ the appropriate level of self-discipline and World Rugby should seriously consider implementing the accumulative penalty system being advocated by former Scotland coach and Rugby Australia director of rugby, Scott Johnson.
Rugby Australia director of rugby Scott Johnson. Photo / Getty
Johnson is pushing for rugby to borrow from basketball and keep a real time, visible account of defensive penalties conceded and once a certain threshold has been met, a yellow card becomes automatic for the next offender.
Under his plan, the penalty count would be reset after a player was sin-binned, but a card would become automatic again at half the initial threshold.
He would include penalties that are awarded while a team is playing under advantage, because he rightly points out that most defensive sides become yet more cynical when they have already infringed and transgress multiple times on one ticket as it were.
It's not the worst idea anyone has ever come up with because as much as rugby needs consistency and accuracy from its referees, it needs a transformation in playing attitudes to induce greater respect for the laws.
Players have always felt its their job to push the limits and test the boundaries and get away with what they can.
But perhaps that's a concept which has done its time and can't be justified in this age of winning fans and selling the sport in such a crowded entertainment market.
And above all else they must accept that the more they try to play within the rules, the less likely it is that outcomes will be affected by refereeing error.
