Six years ago international referee Willie Roos found himself in the middle of a heated Griquas-Bulls match in Kimberley.

Determined to keep a handle on the game, he issued two yellow cards to Griquas, who were duly beaten.

In the ugly aftermath Roos was abused. He even had a drink thrown in his face by an angry supporter.

Having had his fill of insults through the years, Roos called his boss at SA Rugby. “I’m done,” said the 34-year-old. He retired after 15 years of duty with the whistle.

Never mind the investment that his employer had made in him over the years. The result was that a promising young referee was lost to the system forever.

And so we come to the case of Maritzburg College old boy Craig Joubert. You’ve got to go some to dominate the headlines in the World Cup, but Joubert has had that dubious honour after his handling of the Scotland-Australia game.

He’s the villain of the piece in Scotland, not because he appeared to make a couple of wrong decisions, but because the losers demand a scapegoat; anyone but someone from within.

They forget their team’s own mistakes, chiefly the daft decision to opt for a deep lineout at the death, and they forget the clangers that led to Australia scoring. Far easier to blame the referee.

This isn’t to absolve Joubert. By his own high standards, he had an ordinary game, but it was no better or worse than some others at the World Cup.

The point is that Joubert is human. He’s refereed hundreds of games and never been perfect. He makes mistakes, as do all referees.

What should distinguish rugby from other sports, particularly soccer, which trades in abuse, is the respect for authority. With the all-seeing eye of television second-guessing every decision, referees are under enormous pressure. It’s easy for the rest of us to carp on from our couches with the benefit of six camera angles in slow-motion.

To hound Joubert, as the baying masses are doing, is to do the game a disservice.

A bottle had been flung Joubert’s way. Can you say you would have stuck around under the circumstances?

Rugby has long traded on its virtues of being a clean and honourable game. Joubert’s public evisceration is the thin end of the wedge. What’s next, a gauntlet for him to run through? Tar and feathers?

As much as we may detest Bryce Lawrence for his perceived sleight of SA in 2011, the same holds true for him. His crime was botching a major game. It happens, and it cost him his career.

If Joubert is hurting, this would have been amplified by World Rugby’s statement that he had got the decision wrong. Talk about throwing someone under the bus.

The Joubert issue is symptomatic of a bigger issue in rugby and that is the laws, applying them and using the TMO. The laws are far too complex and open to interpretation. Fans are sick to death of the constant chopping and changing. Imagine how the players feel. And we moan about referees getting it wrong.

Officials ought to be able to reach out to the TMO over 50-50 calls, not just foul-play or try-scoring (although I wish refs would trust their judgment more often). But there must be a cap on the time allowed, otherwise rugby will become like American football, played over four hours.

Rugby should also embrace an idea that has floated around for a number of years, namely a captain’s appeal. Each team could be given two opportunities for captains to dispute a call.

Tennis has something similar whereby players are allowed to appeal to Hawk-Eye. They lose the privilege if the appeal goes against them three times per set.

It works well and adds an exciting dimension to the game. Imagine how it could spice things up in rugby. Captains would be empowered and the opportunity to right a wrong would be greatly enhanced.

The pressure on Joubert must be intolerable. The mistake is to join the barbarians at the gate baying for his blood.

He’s a good, decent, honest man who made a mistake. – © Sunday Tribune