Surely if you were paid to act as the TV match official to assist a referee controlling a rugby game, you would pride yourself on your capacity to communicate. You don’t have to run anywhere; you don’t have to blow anything and you don’t even have to get out of your pyjamas for the Lord’s sake. All you need do is watch the game and share an opinion if asked. Easier money than a Bangkok rub ‘n tug parlour operator.

Stu Dickinson’s conversation between himself and the fourth official on Saturday – in what will go down in history as the “Gio Aplon Affair” – amounted to nothing short of a disgrace. The impact of this complete abortion was to possibly change the outcome of the entire Super 15 for 2011. Well done Stu, and your kiwi friend – yet another cracking performance against a South African side. And for once, Dickinson was not even the most culpable; it was the faceless man on the other end of the microphone.

So let’s post-mortem the conversation, it went something like this:

Dickinson: Try or no try? And look out for contact in goal by white defender before the Chief’s player attempted to ground the ball.

[Match official watches tape eight times in super slow motion…]

TV Match Official: He did not ground the ball to score the try, but there did seem to be interference with the player in the in goal area.

Dickinson: So what do you suggest? [Good question.]

TV Match Official: Penalty try.

Dickinson’s action was then to award a penalty try and send Aplon off. An atrocious decision – the most unjust and disproportionate rubbish since the OJ Simpson trial.

So what should the fourth official have said? Stu, to answer your question, I would think a penalty try is very harsh. The white defender however did make contact in-goal but only just. A penalty try would not be completely out of the question (if you are looking for a way to try bring the Chiefs in to the game – implied), but I certainly wouldn’t send the player off. The contact was light and actually as a result of the chief’s player running into the defending white player’s line.

But instead, off went Gio and the seven points stood. As did the next seven, five minutes later with Aplon not on the field to cover for Conrad Jantjes who slipped. Sitiveni Sivivatu went over for and suddenly we had a three-point ball game. Okay granted, from there the Stormers fell to pieces. Peter Grant went to pot and our on-field leadership looked deficient, but the turning point was without doubt as a result of that little man in his box.

What do you think? I’d love to hear how you saw it, unless of course you never saw it the way I did, in which case piss off. You’re probably kiwi too. The real question is: what language training do these referees and match officials get in “articulate question formulation” and “answer delivery”. I bet it’s very little. Your thoughts?

For more insight and opinion, follow Steve Morris on twitter.