There is no mistaking the anger and hurt Springbok supporters are feeling after South Africa lost the World Cup quarter final to Australia. Seems I'm off the Christmas card list for daring to suggest they were brave but unlucky.

I pointed to a questionable decision and one that could have gone either way by referee Bryce Lawrence that cost the Springboks dearly but apparently that wasn't enough.

What seems to have generated their fury -- and forgive me for generalising, African friends -- is my professed admiration for the performance of Australian flanker David Pocock in the game.

Clearly many, including Springbok captain John Smit, felt that Pocock got away with way too much at the breakdown.

Given that the breakdown clash (Pocock and, if fit, Richie McCaw) will be the crucial battle in the weekend's semi final, perhaps we should take time to evaluate the different perceptions of what goes on and what should go on in rucks and mauls with a view to the Wallaby-All Black match.

Bottom line is flankers, from every country, do whatever they can get away with at the breakdown. How the referee chooses to adjudicate that area of the game provides the framework in which they operate and unfortunately that can vary widely.

Of course -- and I know I'm stating the bleeding obvious -- there are universal "laws" governing rucks and mauls, the most obvious including staying on your feet when competing, entering through the ‘gate' (not the side) and not sealing off (the ball).

Trouble is, to expect them to be interpreted in unflinchingly the same way in every match as lunatics fling themselves at each other at great speed, is somewhat naive.

It's a vexed issue for rugby and one I won't dive into here in any great depth, as thousands have tried and failed before to ‘solve' the problem, but one regular consensus is referees should strive for consistency in their rulings: that is, what applies for one team in the course of a game should be the template for the other.

The most common complaints arise from two seemingly polar opposite camps: those who believe over officious referees step in too regularly at the ruck or maul, often times, changing the momentum of the game with ‘pedantic' rulings, while some at the other end of the scale lament what they perceive to be a total ‘lawlessness' in the open field battle for possession.

It's probably not a stretch to say Boks fans were foaming at the mouth about what they perceived to be Lawrence's ‘tolerance' of flagrant breakdown violations by Pocock.

As mentioned previously in this column, I suspect the absence of the fine Springbok backrower Heinrich Brussow for much of the quarter final helped lift the level of South African frustration about Pocock.

South Africa has less reliance on any one player ‘stealing' possession than Australia and New Zealand -- brutal clean outs and winning the group contact are sometimes more important aspects of their play -- but Brussow has proven himself to be an ace at getting to the ball swiftly in attack and defence and a talented forager.

To put it simply, without him there, Pocock had a field day.

It won't be the same against New Zealand and that's not only because South African Craig Joubert -- unquestionably one of the top refs in the game -- will be the main official.

It's more a matter of McCaw's commanding presence and the diverse style of game the All Blacks employ.

For years Australians and others have howled about McCaw's tactics at the breakdown, but I'd suggest there are very few observers of the game who don't believe the man is one of the great players.

The Australians, with George Smith and Phil Waugh amongst others, have long had effective possession pinchers, and with Pocock the tradition continues. Indeed, the Wallabies have a possible counter to McCaw.

However it's that tightly focused reliance on having a supremely gifted No. 7 that is both an Australian strength and weakness. Just look at the Wallabies' horrible pool loss to Ireland where Pocock was absent and poor Ben McCalman had to try and fill his boots.

Such is Australia's need for an effective No. 7, I believe coach Robbie Deans should include specialist Matt Hodgson on the bench as backup for Pocock in the semi. He won't -- he's demonstrated he wants players who can cover more than one position (McCalman and Scott Higgenbotham), but I don't even want to think about what Plan B is should Pocock get hurt.

The All Blacks, of course, will make Pocock accountable and McCaw has the capacity to inflict the same sort damage on the Aussies as Pocock did on the Boks.

However, their trump card is their ability to play the contact game effectively too. If, for whatever reason -- the ref, the weather, injuries -- the Kiwis need to shift gear and change focus, they can.

It's an important part of what makes them the best side in the world, though that's not to say the Australians can't register their first win at Eden Park for more than a quarter of a century.

If the Wallabies get a good share of the ball -- and it's a big ‘if' -- they have the backline to cut up any team. The possible loss of Kurtley Beale to injury is vital in this respect: along with Digby Ioane, he is unquestionably their biggest running threat.

It's hard to see Quade Cooper playing as poorly as he did against the Springboks, although he will be targeted by the All Blacks and no doubt, it seems, many in South Africa would relish seeing the Wallaby No. 10 and the Australians crash and burn.

The irony is, that should Australia be put to the sword, there is a very good chance the world's biggest breakdown ‘cheat‘, McCaw, will be the player disgruntled Springbok fans will be hailing.