So what did we learn at the rugby World Cup?

The short answer is, not much.

Sure, New Zealand didn't (quite) choke which is new and Wales played with adventure and verve - kinda All Blacks-lite - something that was overdue from a northern hemisphere side other than France.

The Japanese and Canadians were well-coached and aggressively competitive in patches (newish) and the French formed a funky V before sashaying into a chorus line and threatening the haka with a Moulin Rogue-style can-can. Awesomely fresh!

But overall, we saw and heard a bunch of the same things that have been the good, bad and swept under the carpet features of rugby since the birth of the professional era about 15 years ago.

Endless gibber about referees (mine included), daft comments and needless meddling from the International Rugby Board, confusion over the breakdown and the scrum, dull and negative tournament play, the Wallabies' inability to overcome their limitations in tight, mistreatment of the minnows, the bleating British press, boorish supporters ... there's more but I, like you, am drifting off.

I believe the 2007 rugby union World Cup was the best advertisement for rugby league in 100 years. The 2011 party was much better for union: New Zealand's unqualified embrace of the event and a greater overall commitment to ball-in-hand play lifted its stocks, but there was still this, ‘preach to the converted and screw the rest of them,' parochialism about it.

After that horrendous 2007 tournament I had an animated discussion (yes, we were on the turps) with a New York-based Pommy mate (I make myself talk to them every few years) who was typically dismissive of my concerns about showing the game in the best possible light. "Who cares whether Australians and Americans don't like it, they can play something else," he said just before I accidently spilt my drink on his freshly polished wing-tip Oxford shoes.

Of course, he's right in a sense, and his opinion is pretty widely held through the rugby world where there is a certain satisfaction or smugness about the idea that this is our complicated, not-dumbed-down sport. I'm sure people who love amateur wrestling, curling and ‘real' tennis feel similarly.

And accordingly, in this highly competitive professional era, we (Australians and Americans, for example) do opt in vast numbers to play games other than rugby union, despite its potential to be the most compelling spectacle, the most gripping of contests and the most socially engaging and honourable of sporting pursuits.

If you were brought up going to a private school in Australia, Britain, Ireland, South Africa and New Zealand there is a good chance you got to recognise those qualities in the game as a kid and can turn a blind eye to the inconsistency, prejudice, elitism, self-interest and belligerence in the administration of the sport that lingers like a stale fart from the ‘good-old-boy' amateur era.

However, if you belong to the other 99.8 percent of the world's population, the 2011 rugby showpiece, like its predecessors, might have been a tricky sell.

For the most part, the World Cup again proved there was a lot to love about the game, but if it's ever to become much more than a niche sport in scores of countries where it already has a foothold and wonderful grassroots involvement surely a few things must change.

Of course, it's often the case that those calling for fundamental change in rugby are either dismissed as ‘league-lovers' or ignoramuses. I am one but not the other. (I'll leave it for you to decide which, although I will tell you I love league like I did my teenage girlfriend and union like an adored spouse). OK, I should stop there.

Point is, I don't want to make union more like league, I want to make it more like rugby. Pick the ball up, run with the thing. Attack, be brave and adventurous. When necessary, defend like a demon. Be rewarded for positivity, innovation and spirit. Kick it when the outcome is going to be distinctly positive or it's your last option, otherwise, try soccer, Aussie rules or Gaelic football. They are better ‘kick-ball' sports.

I don't want to eliminate rucking, mauling or oranges at half time, for that matter. I think it should be a game for every person of whatever size and shape: I'm not out to nullify the 'power' of the scrum or find a way to make it the absurdity it is in league when the packs lean all over each other like a bunch of lonely drunks at the end of a regrettable night.

But if rugby is to continue to flourish, and indeed it has become a friendlier spectator sport (in spite of itself) in the last 35 years, a few harsh decisions have to be made.

The first and most important admission is that the on-field adjudication process is broken. This may not have been a big problem when matches were refereed by the same teacher who gave us the cane at school, or the plump old servant to the game who just wanted "a good contest, pip-pip!" but it is now when rugby, as a professional, global enterprise needs to be transparent and accountable.

I don't buy into conspiracy theories about refs. There were some awful decisions at the World Cup, but surely the worst from any whistleblower was that of South African referees boss Andre Watson who, apparently wearing his know-it-all-git hat, decided to ‘speak out' against Bryce Lawrence after the Kiwi ref had an ordinary outing in the quarter final.

Despicable. How about a note of sympathy and a quick laugh over the phone to Bryce at how many friggin' mistakes you made in your conspicuously flawed career, Andre?

And of course, that only juiced up the anger, so 60,000 or so signed a Facebook petition to stone Lawrence to death or something.

Really?

I mean if you want to sign a petition that does some good, how about putting your signature to demands for the IRB to pull its head out of its William Webb Ellis and listen to its constituents outside the home nations.

Fact is, refs, whoever they are and wherever they come from, have too much to consider and decide upon. Whether we like it or not, they are required to be far too subjective.

In every other major professional sport, the emphasis is on getting the officials out of the limelight but some habits are hard to break and it's apparently the nature of rugby to put the ‘school master' front and centre.

The rules, er, laws, are not that complicated, but the on-field situations on which the ref has to focus (or choose NOT to focus on - e.g. the breakdown for Lawrence in the quarter final and Craig Joubert in the final) are.

Let's face it, there are multiple infringements on every, say, third breakdown play and everybody knows that scrum rulings are a lottery. And not because the ref doesn't know why he's blowing his whistle, he does, but he's picking that one infringement instead of the other two that took place at the same time.

I watched a TV segment featuring Matt Williams, the former New South Wales and Scotland coach, dissecting South African Joubert's performance in the final.

Williams, a great fellow and a slow though intelligent centre in the St Pat's Strathfield First XV in the late 70s, was brutal, but on the money. He used video grabs to marvel at Joubert's inconsistency (which mysteriously has failed to irk the South African rugby public who had been foaming at the mouth over Lawrence's policing of the breakdown in the quarter final).

But slow any game down, watch it frame by frame, and you will come up with multiple, if not scores of examples when the referee coulda-shoulda pulled things up (or let things go).

There is no simple solution: it's always going to be a ref's call, but surely both the laws of the game and the expectations of the rugby community should be re-evaluated with objectivity being the goal.

Similarly the scrum. It's a beast of an issue, but, as I have written before in this column, I refer you to the scrummaging practices of several decades ago when the coming together of the packs meant a contest for possession rather than a five minute toilet break for spectators. The initial collision, as it's administered today, is an unnecessary, destructive sin.

A couple of other quick observations before we pack away the rugby ball for a while: it would be grand to see a team and a country such as Canada embrace the game with greater vigor. I know I'm generalising (it's what I do) but up there, they've got a strong grassroots, a long tradition and are gradually understanding rugby is a true, international professional pursuit.

Hey, nothing's going to challenge ice hockey, but soccer has shown (as it has in the US north-west) that smartly run pro-franchises can get a nice foothold in the market, even in tough times.

Separately, why does international rugby treat Japan like the war only finished last week? Why not work to highlight and take advantage of the enormous professional competition and college rivalries there? I know they've been 'awarded' the 2019 World Cup, but surely a pro-franchise playing out of Tokyo in either the Super competition or something similar is an urgent necessity.

And as for our islander buddies, man, did the Samoans give everyone an earful. And Good on them. They were ripped off at this Cup in terms of the schedule at least. Just a glance at the heritage of many Wallabies indicates how much the Pacific neighbors have contributed to the Aussie game alone. Every effort has to be made to ensure they are supported, encouraged and given the same respect as the top-tier teams.

Speaking of which: Australia will go head to head with the improving Wales in Cardiff on December 3.

The Welsh deserve to be on a high. They showed great potential in the Cup although a narrow loss to South Africa; a very lucky victory over Samoa, a solid win over Ireland, an unlucky loss to an awful France and pretty comprehensive defeat by an injury ravaged Australia shows there is still work to be done.

And what of the Wallabies? No Quade Cooper will make some of the second guessers happy, but the fact is, you could put the aforementioned Matt Williams in at No.10 and if the Australian forwards go backwards, he'll look awful: if they go forward, as they did at times against Wales at the Cup, he might look impressive. Especially with that white hair.

The Wallabies' problem isn't in the backs. It's through the tight forwards (in the set piece/pick and drive) and right across the park due to their inability to bend the defensive line by strength alone. They need a few more huge, strong blokes who run straight and can offload.

Are there any other Pacific islands playing rugby? Get them on the phone right now, there's an incoming British Lions tour in 2013.