Rugby referee of France New Zealand

.
A friend started a discussion on how good / biased was the referee of the world cup final. And many media are giving a lot of noise about this. Here is what I have offered as comments to my friend:
(of course you can also read the October 19 blog on Rugby referee...! a must if you did not read it yet...)

"As French and Canadian citizen, I think that New Zealand deserved the title of the world best team for the whole tournament and for the last few years.
But... strictly on the final game, with Dan Carter out of the NZ team, and if you don't know which teams are playing, certainly France could deserve the victory with 55% ball possession and territory advantage.
But France had their chances with the NZ missed penalties, and their own missed penalties. Number 10 Para having to leave the field was the key for France...
I also think that both France and NZ defences were heroic, and explain the low score.

It is also not the first time that a local team wins a disputed victory...
On one hand the referee had to keep refering half way between Southern Hemisphere and European standards...! And in many previous games I saw arms around the neck which did not even bring a verbal warning, forget a penalty...! I understand it is the Southern Hemisphere way to give priority to the game flowing...
We also all know that in some occasions we will not whistle something with the intent of letting it happen also for the other team... of course if the other team does not do the same infraction... it will look biased by the end of the game! As a point, the first scrum did not happen until the 19th minute...!
We also all know that referees can be looking somewhere else at the critical second (off side, etc...), or that they might have a blank for a split second, of course in a final you dont expect those, but they will arrive. Mind you the assistant referees on the touch line are there to help...

In fact, for me, where the referee showed a bit of "soft" side towards the NZ infractions was when he gave them verbal warnings, in the second half, on 2 or 3 occasions instead of a penalty while it occurred between the 22m and the 40m... Verbal warnings in the first half, OK. In the second half, in the last 20 mns, with one point difference, I know you are probabling offering the game, but... well...
If the game had been in France, and it had been reffed by a European ref, France would have had more chances. It does not mean they would have taken them!... Dont forget that both 9 and 10 were replaced in both teams by middle of the second half.

The final word...?
NZ news papers said it nicely; "Merci France"
Everybody has explained that it was a way to thank France for the beautiful game offered, which has won millions of spectators to rugby, even if they did not see the little things we saw... Rugby won its bet of becoming the flowing game by excellence while still a physical game.
I think the "Merci France" was bit more than that, it was a thank you France for two more things:
- Having won the toss and having chosen the white jersey instead of the black and blue, so the All Blacks could play in black in front of their public...
- Having accepted the referring of the second half without any comment on the field and without any public comment afterwards.
Remember, rugby is a state of mind... and the referee should be respected, at all times, including after the game...
For that attitude also, Thierry Duseautoir deserved his award today of best player of the year, not just for his tackles, and for the very few penalties he ever get on the field.

Now in London in 2015, I bet on a final between two European countries, reffed by a European referee... May the best team win. Could Canada supply a touch judge...!?!"