I'm not sure I get what you mean here … I'm certainly not agitated, and it's not my intention to agitate you … we are having an online discussion expressing different points of view.
Normally I'd agree with you about providing quantifiable evidence and specifics to support an a point of view, and indeed if I was trying to prove bias against the All Blacks in 2007 (which I'm not), that the All Blacks in 2007 were at least equally as hard done by as the French of 2011 (which I'm not), or that the French would never win an RWC because of the bias against them by "Anglos"(I'm not, but it's what I originally replied to), then yes counting every mistake made per game, for and against, and expressing it as a percentage/statistical fact, would be a great way to provide evidence to support my argument.
I appreciate that you are addressing the issue, and saying that my argument may be floored, rather than saying I'm being fallacious myself. There are a few that lose sight of the difference between offering up strong argument against someone's point of view, and attacking the person … you are the former, and I appreciate that.
… my point(s) were that, depending on which country you support (and remember, I gave a number of examples, not just two games involving France and New Zealand at RWC's), you could find reasons to suggest bias against the country you support, I'm not trying to say or prove that one person's reasoning based on statistics from a match/matches is greater than another person who supports another team, I'm merely suggesting that it's natural for people to react to losses by the team they support, and look for reasons for the loss, and sometimes, blame the loss on some kind of bias against them … hence, it's how those people "perceive" what is happened/happening.
In fact, if you want evidence, there's a couple of very good videos on YT for that, or you can just rewatch the whole match itself.
Just a quick word about that. 
Agreed J … the two games are incomparable in how the games were "judged" by the referees … there are too many variables that come into play, such as rule changes/rule interruptions etc. If we were trying to justify that one game somehow cancels out the other one (statistically speaking), we could go back and view the footage, count up the refereeing errors (but even these are open to debate), and compare percentages, but that's not what I'm trying to prove. Yes,(I agree again)people have the perfect right to feel aggrieved at a certain result, and I can't stop anyone from suspecting anything … for my part, I tend to go to refereeing incompetence/inaccuracy, rather than malicious/intentional bias against a particular team.
There's not a lot of point in me doing that. As I detailed above, I'm not trying to prove or disprove bias in that particular match.
Not that anyone needs to convince me, but to prove that France would never win an RWC because of Anglo bias, they would have to show the following:
A pattern of errors made against France, since the RWC's inception in 1987, that didn't match up with similar errors made against other sides.
Proof that these errors were made intentionally.
… As it's unlikely, that anyone's going to provide that, or that it's likely that I'm going to convince anyone, it's probably best to agree to disagree (thanks for the discussion though)
