To be honest there's a bit of a difference between the two calls. One was an error of law, one was a error of judgment. To the TMO it didn't look like Nadolo was out (I personally think it was a 50/50 call - don't recall any instance Nadolo losing the ball over the line?), and it's his prerogative to make that call. In contrast, incorrectly applying the law is a different kettle of fish - there shouldn't be any subjectivity in the law. Of course you could quite rightly argue that Joubert had to make a judgment call on what he saw, perhaps he wasn't able to visually see it was not a tackle etc. etc. Not that I think it makes a difference - a couple of calls here and there are always 50/50, such is the nature of the game. It's not like Joubert had an awful all round game, which he is prone to (last year's final, for example). The Waratahs won fair and square (though of course if the Crusaders had as favourable a draw as the Tahs then I'm sure they would have had the home final and won it ).