For me AG didn't help the game (at best) and hindered it (at worst).
The end of the game decision (ending on a PK) - was wrong in law, and a good reflection of the game from him.
The ball out of ruck - White #8 (?) had asked if it was out, told yes, he plays it, and knocks it backwards. It hits a blue player (I think), and then Wood dives on it. Not sure how a ball that has been played by 2 other people out of the ruck, is still emerging. Or even how White #8 could get to an emerging ball in the first place. It looked wrong to call, and he lost what ever credibility he still had. The best question to ask is - did he have to blow the whistle, or would both sides accept play on? I think they would have done, so play on. Let the players play.
There was a maul at one point which went to ground, that he called a tackle (and it was clearly a maul, and had been a for long enough).
The talk to the hookers was not professional enough, and showed he was frustrated.
Various other times, he seemed to be blowing offences that, while technically correct, were not material. (1 that springs to mind is When England attacking try line, Wood goes to clear out, and falls off feet, so does go to ground, but ball is away before a French player gets close. In fact the French player Wood is trying to clear out, has stepped away from the tackle, to defend the next phase.)
And yes - I only mention things against England, but that is because what I recall. I do also recall thinking at the time that Eng were luck to get some of the PKs they got.
Didn't help that the players didn't know what AG was going to call, or not.
But I have seen him before, and would put this down as a bad day at the office, and and only marginally worse than a good day from Clancy or Lacey
