Tough challenges lie ahead for rugby

Well, the rugby World Cup was a wonderful event, but some of us have been left with a slight concern that it wasn't quite as wonderful as it could have been.

I should hasten to add that this is not because South Africa didn't retain our status as champions of the world. Even if the Springboks had won, there still would have been a certain special something missing from the competition.

Perhaps we were spoilt last time round when, in our first venture into the World Cup, we were hosts, and then, amazingly, and very possibly against the odds, we became World Champions. Perhaps the hysteria and excitement of that 1995 triumph resulted in any follow-up being doomed to be something of an anti-climax.

As a fan of the competition, I am hesitant to say it but at times the competition was a little boring. The opening ceremony couldn't match the 1995 opening ceremony and the opening game was always doomed to be a pale shadow of the first game at Newlands against Australia in 1995. Once the Welsh had contrived to avoid playing South Africa in the opening game, it was never going to be able to match that memorable South Africa versus Australia clash. What a pity the Welsh didn't play South Africa. Having managed to beat the Springboks a few months before at the opening of the Millennium Stadium, the match would have been an absolute humdinger.

The opening rounds of the World Cup seemed to take a long time to unfold. In most cases the outcome was predictable and with the established rugby powers and the minnows so vastly different in ability many of the games lacked intensity.

The South Africa versus Scotland clash was well worth watching and provided the best moment of the opening rounds for South Africa: Ollie le Roux's bashful smile when he scored his try!

The England versus New Zealand clash was predictably a key moment and Samoa beating the Welsh was also worth watching. But, all in all, the opening rounds were a little slow and went according to the agreed script.

It was almost with a sense of relief that we greeted the start of the knockout rounds. There is something about sudden death that gets the pulses racing. From that point on, the World Cup had the potential to explode. At times it threatened to do just this but some of the games were let down by a combination of poor refereeing and confusion over the rules. There were some great games, of course. Jannie de Beer's drop-kicking record was simply astounding and it was great to see the Springboks put the English rugby press as well as their national rugby team firmly in their place.

Then there was the truly memorable game of the championships, France against New Zealand. Only the French and a few fanatics would have predicted that the All Blacks would be given such a comprehensive thrashing. It was good for both the game of rugby and the competition as a whole to see the red-hot favourites beaten as they were and beaten in such exciting style.

Running rugby was what the competition had missed up until then, something which would always remove it from the boredom dangerline. The drop goal and running rugby are what bring new fans to the game and the French certainly provided it with four tries in grand style. Whatever Stephen Larkham may have said about the drop goal (and wasn't it an irony that he knocked South Africa out with one) the drop goal is infinitely more preferable to the dull penalty kick. Better by far than both is the running try with exciting passing and tackling. Purists and die-hard fans will love any game even if it is a clutch of scrums but that style of play doesn't interest most of the fans.

Too often in this World Cup we waited for the referee's whistle and then, bemused, waited to see in which direction he pointed or raised his arm. There has to be something wrong with a game where even the players are uncertain about who has transgressed the rules and why he has transgressed them. The penalised players often retreat the 10 metres looking completely confounded or angry. What also helped to underline the fact that there is a problem is that expert commentators were confused and often disagreed with the referee.

If the next World Cup is going to triumph and excite more followers it is going to have to be simpler to understand by all followers. The rules need to be clarified and both northern and southern hemisphere referees need to understand and be consistent in their application of them. If necessary, television technology must start being used to help the man with the whistle in the middle. Technology and the role of the third umpire has helped cricket immensely.

Should they not begin to come to the rescue of rugby as well?