The 19th-century British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli had a saying which is as relevant today as it was when he first uttered it some 140 years ago: never apologise for showing your feelings because when you do so you are apologising for the truth.
Morgan Williams was Canada's scrum-half this World Cup. The Canucks failed to win a match, but thought they had done so against Japan when the countdown clock reached zero and they were 12-5 ahead. The referee Jonathan Kaplan, who takes charge of England's semi-final against France this weekend, had earlier denied Williams a try which subsequent replays showed to have been valid.
Two minutes over the 80, Japan scored an equalising try and conversion. After the match, Williams let rip against Kaplan and questioned the official's eyesight. The scrum-half said he knew he would incur the wrath of the International Rugby Board, but as he was retiring from the game he was not bothered. Yesterday, after a complaint from the IRB, Williams was forced to issue an apology through the Canadian Rugby Union who said the player had been emotional when he had made the comments immediately after the match.
Of course, there was no explanation, let alone apology, from the IRB about the incidents Williams referred to. Doubtless the New Zealand coach Graham Henry, along with his United States counterpart and compatriot Peter Thorburn, will be getting a call over remarks they made this week about touch judges in the tournament being told not to interfere for incidents - other than foul play - which fall outside their traditional remit, a claim which has been denied by the Board.
They were both alluding to the forward pass in the build-up to France's winning try over the All Blacks in last Saturday's quarter-final in Cardiff. Henry, to his credit, has not used the mistake as an excuse for his side's failure to make the last four, but can New Zealand expect an apology from the IRB for an error which some believe will cost at least three men their jobs? More chance of a sympathy card from Sydney.
The Board announced before the tournament that it was stopping the traditional pre-match meeting between referees and coaches, and also that it would monitor remarks made by players and coaches to the media before a game and act if it felt anyone were trying to exert undue influence on officials.
What brings the game into disrepute more? A few words spoken in the heat of the moment or wrong decisions, however innocently made, which can affect livelihoods and wreck the holiday plans of thousands of supporters?
If players and coaches are publicly accountable for their words, why are referees so protected? They are, in the main, full-time professionals. No one has questioned their partiality this tournament, but why has Paul Honiss, who made several errors in Samoa's match against South Africa on the opening weekend of the tournament, been given the play-off match next week?
If players have a bad game, they are dropped. If coaches do not enjoy success, they are sacked - just look at the number of countries currently seeking new men in charge. But referees are protected by IRB regulation 20.1.5 which states that "unions, associations, rugby bodies, clubs and persons shall not publish or cause to be published criticism of the manner in which a referee or touch judge handled a match."
Never mind if a game hinged on a refereeing decision, keep your mouth shut. Why? So that future referees are not discouraged from taking up the whistle. Who cares if arch-mediocrity results?
Kaplan was the target of a verbal assault from England two years ago after refereeing their Six Nations defeat to Ireland in Dublin. The then head coach Andy Robinson ended up being carpeted for suggesting the South African had only refereed one side, livid that two try claims by his players had not been referred to the video referee. The Rugby Football Union's referee manager, Colin High, ended up being given a written warning and suspended as an IRB referee's assessor for saying's Kaplan's performance would not have been acceptable in the Premiership, let alone an international, and that if one of his referees had controlled a game like that, he would have had his backside kicked for making the appointment.
It should be a question of balance. Ritual baiting of referees is undesirable, reflecting more on coaches and players who indulge in the practice than officials; but equally when glaring and costly mistakes are made, those who are culpable, now that the game is professional, should not be able to hide behind an outdated regulation.
Football protects its referees from verbal abuse, but it is also transparent about the action it takes against officials when bad mistakes are made. If the IRB insists on players and coaches issuing apologies they do not mean, there are times when it also needs to show that referees are accountable. One of the lessons of this World Cup is that weakness will be found out.
