It felt like a proper occasion in Bordeaux on Sunday. The trams were so jammed en route to the ground that the kick-off had to be delayed to allow spectators extra time to find their seats. For those who dismiss the notion of club rugby rivaling football for vibrant mass interest here was a compelling counterpoint: a heaving 42,000-capacity stadium, off-the-scale passion, top-class sport in every respect.

Later on, after the game was done, there was another revealing snapshot at the airport. As Bath’s beaten players headed for their flight home they were warmly applauded down to the gate by their travelling supporters. A corner of a foreign departure lounge was briefly akin to north-east Somerset. Despite the outcome, the fans instinctively wanted to show how much they have enjoyed their team’s efforts this season.

In many ways it felt like a throwback to another era, when what mattered as much as anything else was the kinship, the shared blue, black and white bond and respect for the gladiators doing the hard yards. Until, that is, everyone returned to their smartphones and the very modern social media furore surrounding some of the big decisions in Bordeaux’s 38-26 Champions Cup semi-final victory.

From the sofa-bound majority at home there was much foam-flecked outrage. On the television it was alleged that Bath had been seriously wronged by the failure to penalise several upright tackles on their No 8, Alfie Barbeary. The talk was of routinely biased French TV directors, the sinister non-appearance of key replays and the monstrous unfairness of it all.

Even the normally implacable head coach, Johann Van Graan, weighed in, insisting Barbeary had been the victim of three head shots in the 19th, 23rd and 42nd minutes. “All that we as coaches, players and lovers of the game ask is that there’s consistency,” he said. “I thought the referee, Nika Amashukeli, did a fantastic job and I thought Ben Whitehouse, the TMO, did the best he could with the angles available to him. However, for such an amazing contest, we need to make sure they’ve got the footage they need.”

Plenty there to encourage conspiracy theorists. Except that, on closer examination, things were less clear cut. The first incident, involving Maxime Lamothe was a low-impact soak tackle; not one player complained. The second, loudly proclaimed by Premier Sport’s Andy Goode to be clear foul play by Adam Coleman, was another red herring. In the ground, to the naked eye, it seemed a hard, but legal, shoulder to the upper body that rocked Barbeary’s head backwards, but did not connect with his face.

Even the third incident, the supposed open-and-shut case of Maxime Lucu and Barbeary clashing heads early in the second half, was not entirely what it seemed. Barbeary side-stepped into the contact, changing his angle late and ensuring the collision was closer to a glancing rugby incident than the full-frontal smash the much-shared still image implies. Amashukeli was close by and saw nothing seriously untoward.

On top of which it needs reiterating that Bordeaux were fully deserving winners. Yes, Sunday’s host broadcast director was French. Yes, it might have helped had a couple more TV angles been available. Yes, there have been historical instances in France of potentially vital replays going “missing”. Yes, brain health is paramount. But here was a classic distillation of what rugby is in danger of becoming: a screen-obsessed, finger-pointing, hair-trigger argument that leaves the match officials helplessly caught in the middle. And it has to stop.

No one is suggesting live punditry is an easy gig. But kneejerk pronouncements that “That’s at least a yellow” or “They’ve got to look at this” look less clever when they turn out to be wrong. Where is the considered verdict? Or the empathy with those making such big decisions in real time?

Add in a ridiculously overstuffed law book, a need to be seen to be prioritising player safety while simultaneously celebrating huge collisions and coaches seeking the slightest edge and it makes for an unedifying mix. Teams trying to milk cheap penalties under the notional banner of player welfare, players hamming up relatively innocuous incidents to encourage TMO involvement, repeated big screen replays to inflame the crowd and try to influence the referee … none of it is enhancing either the spectacle or the game’s integrity.

Those who argue that this is good news in terms of stimulating debate and online clicks are also ignoring the knock-on effects further down rugby’s pyramid. Parents railing at referees and coaches on junior level touchlines, middle-aged fans who should know better increasingly howling at officials for costing their team victory.

People also have short memories. It is less than four weeks since Bath benefited late on in the quarter-final from a contentious breakdown penalty against Northampton’s Henry Pollock. To recycle Van Graan’s point, where is the consistency?

The best solution, in an ideal world, would be to mute the TMO’s microphone, cease showing out-of-context slow-mo replays other than to confirm or disallow tries, penalise only clear and obvious offences visible to the referee (aside from off the ball skullduggery spotted by his assistants) and put all other potential miscreants “on report” for potential retrospective action. None of which will dilute the importance of the head injury assessment process, with players continuing to be withdrawn permanently if either the independent doctor or the mouthguard technology decrees it.

French TV directors should also be invited to hop on the Eurostar and meet their British and Irish counterparts to discuss their shared craft over a flat white or three. And over-excited summarisers should be politely reminded that journalistic balance is an essential part of their remit. Then maybe the actual rugby can once more take centre stage.

• This is an extract from our weekly rugby union email, the Breakdown. To subscribe just visit this page and follow the instructions.