Being the exciting man I am, I've watched the truly epic Australia-South Africa quarter final replay three times now.

I did it for a couple of reasons: 1) I have no life and 2) I wanted to get my head around the way others saw the game, especially some South African supporters who felt they got a rough deal from the referee.

In a few social media (whatever-that-is) conversations and email exchanges, I was surprised at the number of non Wallaby people who were filthy about the result, but I suppose that's going to happen when a side dominates, as the Springboks did, though fails to win on the scoreboard.

Some critics suggested the breakdown was a complete shambles with both sides flopping all over the ball while other angry and deluded people were quick to suggest referee Bryce Lawrence didn't penalise the Australian scrum enough (as he had with gusto in the pool loss to Ireland and most every other Test match the Wallabies play under him).

And of course, a few of the bitter Pommy papers - still hurting in the wake of England playing like headless chooks against France - were crushingly critical of the Wallabies, choosing to ignore their astonishing commitment in the tackle and at the breakdown, preferring to take silly stabs at Quade Cooper - who admittedly went AWOL - and Australia's ‘lack of attack'.

A little food for thought there, but stuff ‘em, Australia's defence was breathtaking - it's just hard for anyone to understand how the Boks could lose that game with so much territory and quality ball.

However, when someone as honorable as South African captain John Smit comes out and says they were dudded (I'm paraphrasing), it's worth questioning your own perceptions. (By the way, how refreshing it was to see Springbok ace Victor Matfield warmly congratulate the Australians after the game).

Smit obviously thought outstanding Australian flanker David Pocock got away with too much at the breakdown. There is little doubt referee Bryce Lawrence didn't blow the whistle as often as usual in this one. Perhaps he read his record of penalising Australia at a two-to-one rate in this Cup.

Whatever the reason, he didn't drive anyone nuts with interruptions. I saw one statistical breakdown putting the penalties at 5-4 South Africa; I suspect there were a couple more, but I can't watch the game back again to count them without risking a marriage breakup or locking the kids in the cupboard again, so we'll go with that.

Regardless, there certainly weren't the two dozen or more we sometimes see in Tests, officiated by the officious.

I could go through each play in the game - I am that boring - but in summary, I reckon the Boks generally got shortchanged in a significant way once, maybe twice, but it had little to do with Pocock, who amazingly is even more impressive when you watch the game again and again. Oh, and without seeming to scramble to balance the ledger, the Wobblies also had cause for complaint a few times too (the Digby Ioane mid-air take out and the accidental offside ruling after Kurtley Beale's break on the counter amongst them).

My usual criticism of Lawrence, known to all three of you regular readers, is he adjudicates with momentum - that is, he starts rewarding one team for dominance in a particular aspect of play and sometimes doesn't stop to the extent he appears to be refereeing one team and not the other.

He's not the only one doing this in world rugby and he's far from the worst.

Just ask Wales and France after this coming weekend's semi when Alain Rolland graces us with his schoolmasterly presence.

On the live viewing of the Wallabies' quarter final, as I was screaming at the screen and crying regularly with the Australians almost constantly under siege, my only thought about Lawrence was he was letting the match run, very much in the spirit of Super 15 games. At the time, I could only think that was to the Aussies' detriment because the Saffers had so much ball: the Wallabies were begging for a stoppage or eight.

To the credit of both teams, there was barely a moment to gather one's breath in this match. Only one try, but there was an intensity, pace and controlled brutality that makes the head spin (on third viewing too).

In short, the big Bok whinges I can most empathize with are the forward pass ruling that surely cost them a try and the stray hand in the ruck on the Wallabies line in the first quarter of the game when Schalk Burger (who played an unbelievable game, matched in a quietly awesome way by a defence-minded Rocky Elsom) smashed his way to within inches of the Australian line.

The forward pass seemed borderline, but Lawrence was right on the spot - even the Kiwi commentators who were willing the Australians to crack, called it forward. I guess it's worth saying that many marginal passes are let go in rugby union so it is tough to be pulled up, especially when a try is seemingly inevitable.

The bigger complaint should be the ruling on the Australian line with Burger in the first quarter of the game. Clearly, in the slow motion replay at least, the ball is turned over by a hand in the ruck. It was on the blind side - an assistant referee would have had to make the call.

The more general complaint that Lawrence didn't stop players from going off their feet at the breakdown has some credence, though there was a consistency in his interpretation and truth be told, the Boks with so much of the ball (128 rucks and mauls to Australia's 48) were sealing off with more consistency and frequency than super glue.

At least 75 percent of the penalties against Australia were for breakdown offences and they were obvious attempts to slow the ball or simply play off their feet - desperate measures.

Yet, Pocock simply wasn't the repeat offender you'd expect a cheating, bastard No.7 to be. (And that would be on their resume).

Watch the replay.

He was on hand at the breakdown too often to be a human, and almost always he was completely legal. If he didn't have rights to the ball, he had at least established his right to be there; to be an horrendous nuisance.

Unfortunately the Boks lost Heinrich Brussow, a wonderful backrow scavenger, early so they had no leader in stealing possession and no obvious counter to getting to the ball as quickly as Pocock.

In defence they were slow and awkward trying to steal and on attack the Saffers relied on brutal clean outs, which hurt, but are occasionally ineffective if the lunatic standing over your player is a friggin' statue like Pocock.

There was a period of play -- about 10 minutes or so -- from the 58th minute about which the South Africans clearly feel aggrieved, with decision after decision (or non-action) not going their way while they were pretty much camped within 20 metres of the Australian line.

The big one came immediately after Cooper's idiotic drop-out from the quarter that was blocked, setting up a string of plays where the Boks, trailing, looked sure to score.

In the 58th minute, with the Boks taking it in, Pocock gets that squat thing going against an attacking SA breakdown. He doesn't win the ball but incurs the wrath of a nation and Burger who resents the ball being slowed.

Burger assaults him with murderous intent, but Pocock bobs back up and rudely plunges back into the ruck. Both players have looked longingly at Lawrence who correctly waves it on. The Saffers win the ball only for James Horwill to legitimately win the relieving penalty for Australia at the next breakdown.

In the next few minutes, a drop goal lifts the South Africans into the lead but it was a try they needed and deserved ... maybe.

The South Africans pressed and didn't get the rub of the green. A dumb SA penalty for the pull down at a lineout after replacement Berrick Barnes finally got the Aussies in Saffer territory was enough for an astonishing result in a game full of of incremental victories.

I understand Smit's frustration. It's hard to believe Pocock could be there, first, at the potential turnover/slowdown, so often.

But he was, in one of the best performances I've ever seen by a flanker.