It was obvious from the outset of this World Cup that referees had been told to crack down on foul play. However, the ludicrous suspension handed down South Africa's Schalk Berger early in the tournament showed that the judiciary could be taking the crackdown a little too far.

Berger's tackle on Samoa's Junior Polu was indeed dangerous, probably deserving of a yellow card. But when the judicial committee handed down a four-match suspension, the Springbok management rightly appealed. American Paul Emmerick was given a five-game suspension for a shocking spear tackle, which set a precedent, but Berger's tackle was not even close in comparison. Thankfully the judicial committee saw they had got it wrong and reduced the suspension to two matches after a South African appeal.

Which brings us to Sione Lauaki's case. His tackle was comparable to Berger's, although probably lower on the scale and after reading the judicial officer's report it would appear that those were his findings as well. However, he still handed down a two-match suspension, ruling Lauaki out of this weekend's quarter-final against France and the semi-finals should the All Blacks progress.

• In categorising the seriousness of the offence, the judicial officer decided the tackle was reckless; it was not effected with any intention to harm the opposing player and caused no injury.

A very fair summary of the tackle - no intent, no damage caused.

'It is not the fact that Lauaki has been suspended that makes a mockery of the system, it is the reasons given'

• Accordingly, he determined the offence merited a low-end entry point. The judicial officer concluded there were no aggravating features.

Aside from the pompous waffle of a "low-end entry point", this restates that the tackle was a minor offence.

• However, in 2005 the player was suspended for two weeks for a dangerous tackle.

A two week-suspension two years ago? How is that relevant? Sure it is useful if the judicial officer is looking to establish a pattern, but in the preceding paragraphs they were trying to determine the severity of the offence.

• That factor, combined with the fact that he did not acknowledge culpability, led the judicial officer to conclude the player's personal mitigation was not such as to merit a reduction from the low-end entry point, namely a two-week suspension.

Hold on a second, "did not acknowledge culpability"? To quote New Zealand's Tana Umaga, "This is rugby, not tiddlywinks!" Things happen on the field, and some of them are unpleasant. To suggest that Lauaki is being suspended because he did not say he deserved to be punished for an act which even the judicial officer admits was not intentional hardly seems like anybody's idea of justice. Instead, it appears the judicial officer is sticking to the letter of the law, not the spirit of it.