Ireland v Argentina: It has been said that the best form of defence is attack, a maxim with which Argentinian captain Agustin Pichot clearly believes following what can only be described as a verbal scattergun fusillade half an hour after Ireland nudged past Argentina at Lansdowne Road on Saturday.

Pichot nursed several grievances. The first of which was against his Ireland counterpart Brian O'Driscoll, who he accused of trying to get Argentinian players sent off - presumably he meant sin-binned.

There was an interesting cameo as the Argentinians met their Irish counterparts coming through a doorway at Lansdowne Road. Pichot passed O'Driscoll and decided to launch a verbal assault. The Irish captain looked, said nothing, and then threw his eyes up in the air. The conversation at the post-match banquet at the Shelbourne hotel must have been doozy.

O'Driscoll was not the sole culprit in Pichot's eyes as he would go on to castigate the IRB and sundry others for various sleights against the Argentinian rugby side. It was a passionate diatribe and it is hard not to lend a sympathetic ear to some of his perceived injustices.

Yet, when Ireland coach Eddie O'Sullivan subsequently strode in for his press conference and announced that they had asked Italian match commissioner Alberto Recaldini to view a tape of the game because "we have six players who were gouged, five in the eyes and one in the mouth", Ireland immediately snatched the high moral ground. O'Sullivan would add rather grim faced: "One of the players has had stitches in the side of his eye. It's against the spirit of the game to gouge someone."

The media were cast in the role of "tattle-tales" as they repeated the accusations from one side to the other and vice versa.

Umbrage was the overwhelming sentiment. Recaldini's decision yesterday, that there was no evidence to suggest such foul play, just adds to the ambiguity surrounding the dispute.

In the process of a rant about O'Driscoll demanding Argentinian players be carded, Pichot finished: "It is a very unsporting thing. The match should be played like it used to be, has to be."

A couple of moments later the Argentina captain observed: "The only thing we ask is a fair respect. The other things we ask (for) is a fair challenge."

The sentiments expressed in those couple of sentences appeared hollow when set against the accusations of eye gouging. There is a genuine sympathy among rugby supporters that Argentina aren't getting a fair crack of the whip from the IRB. They didn't in the World Cup in terms of their match schedule and they are not now.

It's difficult, however, to cast them in the role of innocent victims when they are alleged to perpetrate such serious foul play on the pitch. It undermines the case they are trying to plead.

Next week Argentina will play South Africa in Buenos Aires and the IRB have not supported the home union's efforts to have players released by French clubs and, in the case of Felipe Contepomi, Leinster.

They will take the field without about 10 of Saturday's team. Pichot claimed: "We were begging (club) presidents to release players but they said that the IRB gave them authorisation. We need to be treated with the same respect."

There were further references to promised financial aid that has not as yet been forthcoming from the governing body of the sport.

The gouging claims though would supersede all other issues raised.

O'Sullivan didn't hide his displeasure. He said: "Argentina are an excellent rugby team and a fine rugby nation. We have huge respect for them. It is with the officials now and they can deal with it. It's unfortunate. We can't pretend it didn't happen though. We're very upset."

O'Driscoll was even more direct in his accusations. "I was aware that a number of players were getting gouged and there is no place in rugby for that no matter what's at stake. It's a disgrace."

As to the vexed question of whether O'Driscoll had been actively canvassing English referee Tony Spreadbury to have Argentinian players yellow carded, he responded: "To put the record straight, not once did I say we want a yellow card. I just said to Tony that I thought they were persistently infringing. He said he'd deal with it."

Therein, unfortunately, lay the nub of much of Saturday's contretemps on and off the field. Spreadbury failed to adequately police the ruck and tackle area leading to huge frustration on both sides.

The result was that the discontent was manifest in different ways - two interpretations of how to redress the situation. One through dialogue, the other a more hands-on approach. Neither was satisfactory.