In the modern era most sports have to consider how much technology to use (and when) in terms of assisting the officials taking decisions on the pitch and I guess there is an element here of ‘whatever you do is wrong’.

Nevertheless, having watched most of the Rugby World Cup matches thus far, one of two points occur to me as regards elite, televised, rugby, though perhaps some or all of them have to be discounted by practicality - straightforward cost implications would presumably prevent the authorities ordering twenty television cameras to be present at every rugby game that ever takes place!

At the moment in elite rugby I believe the referee is only allowed to ‘go upstairs’ (to the video referee) for the purpose of determining whether a try has actually been scored – i.e. touched down correctly within the laws of the game - and/or whether there anything untoward occurred in the run up to the touchdown that should prevent him awarding it. To an extent the referee can influence the outcome in asking his question: he might refer it saying “I was not able to see the ball as the players went over the line, can you tell me whether it was legally grounded or not?” or alternatively he might ask “I felt that was a try, but can you tell me if there is any reason why I cannot award it?” But even some aspects of this limited use of video are unclear. Is it supposed to be used only in and around the try-line or not? For example, what happens if the video referee responds “Well, the touchdown was fine, but I’m afraid you missed a blatant forward pass on the halfway line about thirty seconds, and three passages of play, before the try was scored”?

Here are some incidents that I’ve witnessed in the Rugby World Cup:

Several off-the-ball incidents of violent or unfair play – some of them warranting yellow or even red cards – that have been completely missed by the referee and two touch judges officiating on the field of play.

As the Canada versus Japan match went into overtime the next stoppage or incident of the ball going dead would end it. Japan, seven points behind, launched a desperate drive, somebody chipped the ball over the Canadian try-line and in the ensuing melee a Canadian pushed the ball backwards with his hand over the dead ball line. End of match, you would think. Not so. The South African referee Jonathan Caplan referred the incident to the video official – despite the fact there was absolutely no question of a try having been scored, which is the only reason a referee is permitted to do this – and asked “was there anything untoward with that incident”? I didn’t quite hear the video referee’s comments but he recommended a five-metre scrum … from which the Japanese duly managed to score a converted try to draw the game. The match had no implications for the ultimate destination of the William Webb Ellis trophy, but that’s not the point. Yes, it was exciting & dramatic, and also a great fillip and joy for the Japanese team to draw a match at the Rugby World Cup – one was pleased for them on principle – mind you, it was presumably also a source of huge frustration to the Canadians, for whom one also had sympathy - but (de facto) it was a Grade A travesty.

Some decisions which have been patently wrong, e.g. yesterday, in the match between France and Georgia, a burly Georgian deliberately (not accidentally) ‘spear tackled’ a Frenchman – a straight red card in my book – and yet the referee, who’d seen (or had his attention called to) the incident, yellow-carded a quite different player.

Untold numbers of refereeing ‘errors’, e.g. knock-ons, forward passes and crooked feeds to line-outs or scrums which were not spotted and/or acted upon by the officials. Yesterday in Argentina’s dramatic 30-15 victory over Ireland, for example, Argentina was denied a real chance of a try when an Irish player deliberately blocked an Argentinian chasing a ball towards the Irish try line … and then later, at the beginning of the movement that led to one of Ireland’s two tries there was a blatant forward pass.

My point is that on some of the decisions a match – or even qualification into the knock-out stages – could depend.

When somebody commits an offence that warrants a yellow or red card, yes in practice their departure from the field of play might affect the outcome of the match … even reduce it as a spectacle for the crowd and those watching on television … but (here’s the rub), on the other side of the coin, them somehow ‘getting away with it’ and staying on the pitch (e.g. via the officials not spotting something and/or not dishing out the tough punishment it deserved) might also affect the outcome. Having the incident cited later … and for example a player banned for two or more matches afterwards … is all very fine – but try telling that to the opposition who perhaps either lost the game, or failed to get the bonus point they might otherwise have gained, because he wasn’t sent from the pitch!

Given that all the officials can carry on two-way communication with each other, I personally wouldn’t have a problem with the video referee calling up the referee on the pitch in the middle of the action and saying “There was a knock-on in that last move” and/or “Number 6 on the Red team used his boot on the head of Blue team’s Number 4”, or even “You’re about to yellow card the wrong player!”

The crowd in the stadia (and, dare I say it, those at home watching on television) get very heated indeed when incidents of (e.g.) foul play or obvious forward passes are later re-shown on the video screens when they have been missed by the officials.

I know there’s a balance to be had – and that the officials on the pitch must be allowed to get on with their jobs – but I personally don’t feel any referee should resent some fellow Big Brother over-viewing official helping them out. These matches are played for big stakes. Anything which can help to reduce the instances of missed infringements and/or refereeing mistakes should be embraced.