After going down 33-6 to the All Blacks in Christchurch on Saturday, Springbok captain Johann Muller launched an attack on his New Zealand counterpart Richie McCaw, labelling him "lucky". Perhaps Muller was frustrated that his team failed to generate any real scoring chances, or maybe that once again the South Africans had a player sin-binned, which cost them the game.

Whatever his reason, Muller's attack on McCaw at the post-game press conference was quite unjustified - but there is likely a method to his madness.

He claimed: "If McCaw was wearing a green jersey and had blond hair, or a yellow jersey and dreadlocks, he would never finish a Test," a clear reference to fellow-Bok Schalk Burger and Australian flanker George Smith. "As a player it is disappointing because you want to have a fair go at the breakdown but he's making it really difficult for us."

'To suggest that McCaw somehow receives preferential treatment from referees is laughable'


What really got the Springbok captain upset was the sin-binning of flanker Pedre Wannenburg at a vital time in the match for an infringement which the South Africans believe was identical to one committed by McCaw that only yielded a penalty.

A cursory glance reveals that he may have a point. The infringements were remarkably similar, but their context is where the difference becomes apparent.

Before the infringement which led to Wannenburg's yellow card, All Black No.8 Rodney So'oialo had made a break and was tackled by the last defender. With two men unmarked outside him and only five metres to the goal line, if the ball had been recycled quickly then a try was imminent. Instead, Wannenburg killed it. Off his feet by having both elbows in the ground, he continued to hold the ball against So'oialo and never tried to claim it while giving his defence a chance to regroup from the initial bust.

McCaw's infringement also happened at the tackle, where he arrived correctly and attempted to claim the ball while on his feet. The transgression came after he went off his feet and continued to play the ball. But all this happened right on the half-way line with the All Blacks' defensive line completely set.

Given the contextual differences between the two infringements, it is easy to see why referee Stuart Dickinson treated them differently. Only the most partisan South African supporter would argue that an offence on half-way could possibly be worthy of a yellow card.

To suggest that McCaw somehow receives preferential treatment from referees is equally laughable. What does he do for the referees to get this "special treatment"? Are they scared of him, or just in awe of his play? Of course not, he is treated like any other player on the field and respected by referees because of his rugged but fair style of play.

These allegations of preferential treatment or of cheating against McCaw are nothing new - even some New Zealand journalists have made accusations during Super 14. But close examination of McCaw's play reveals he does not intentionally infringe, instead relying on his superb balance and freakish timing to win the ball. Sometimes he gets it wrong and is rightly penalised, but you will never see him deliberately flop onto the ball to kill it or hold onto a ball because his team is under pressure.

The cynical among us have suggested that Muller's comments were a deliberate ploy by the South Africans to put pressure on the  World Cup referees. And it makes sense, too. If those comments go some way to neutralising the best open-side flanker in the world today, then they have served their purpose - because right now everyone is debating whether McCaw is a cheat and not how South Africa received five yellow cards in four Tri-Nations games.