Neutral referees

Is it only me that wonders about the selection of referees for the various quarter-finals? I'm not saying (although I still think Wayne Barnes had a shocker and cost the All Blacks the game) that the referees that remained for the quarters, semis and final were the wrong choices, but the way the matches were awarded seems odd.

Test matches have, for pretty good reasons, neutral referees. If France play the All Blacks in a normal week, a referee from England, or anywhere else in the world except France or New Zealand makes sense. But, in a RWC knockout stage, there might be, ought to be, more things to consider.

One half of the "pool" saw England, Australia, France and New Zealand. Whilst I, along with everyone else, assumed that Australia and New Zealand would win, picking the referees for both those matches from any of the other countries represented on the refereeing panel - Ireland, Wales, South Africa for example, and particularly for the second game is surely possible. If you are going to implicitly accept that a referee may be biased in favour of their home country - that's why we have neutrals, to make sure it doesn't happen - then how much of a stretch of the imagination is to ask if Wayne Barnes had a shocker, or if he was biased because, as an Englishman, he believed (rightly or wrongly) that his national side would have an easier time of it against one side than the other? Certainly a cynic might suggest that an England supporter might believe that England have a better chance against the French, who they have beaten this year, than against the All Blacks - and look at what the semi final is going to be!

In the other side, we had South Africa, Fiji, Scotland and Argentina. Referees from New Zealand, Australia, England (as well as Ireland and Wales) would work just fine, with no accusations of bias being leveled after the match.