After those attempts, Clancy asked for protection from security guards.
During a subsequent hearing, Cheika volunteered details of a previous incident in 2005 when he had made a sizeable donation to charity and another incident in France earlier in the 2010-11 season when he abused match officials and was banned for a month from the touchlines.
After the Cardiff hearing in 2011, the judgment said:
"The disciplinary committee noted that Mr Cheika had been angry and agitated and had approached the referee repeatedly at halftime which he knew was not permitted under ERC rules.
"He has been coaching at the highest level in the Heineken Cup for a number of seasons and would have known before speaking to the referee that this was not permitted."
Now Cheika has done something similar and been issued a naughty boy note while on a suspended sentence.
Sanzar investigated the infringement and concluded there had been no code of conduct breach yet issued warnings to Cheika and referee Jaco Peyper.
If there was no breach why did the incident provoke a warning for Cheika about his actions?
If there was a breach why was Cheika given an extra warning instead of having his suspended ban activated?
How intense was the Sanzar investigation into Cheika's behaviour?
No matter how polite or trivial the conversations were between Cheika and the officials, Sanzar cannot excuse his halftime "discussion" nor can they waive it as a one-off.
He has form for that sort of intrusion and knows referees are out of bounds during matches and Sanzar must have been apprehensive when they were confronted with the formal complaint.
If they invoked Cheika's suspended sentence that would have removed him from coaching the Wallabies at the World Cup and caused additional friction with Sanzar CEO Greg Peters, who is often a guest at Waratahs home games, and his son who is on the Tahs technical staff.
