Referee Ben O’Keeffe was singled out by Antoine Dupont or Fabien Galthié at the end of the game on Sunday evening. They particularly criticized his decisions on regroupment areas.
Usually rather smooth in front of the press, Antoine Dupont, for once, had stubborn resentment. “I think some things that are clear and obvious to whistle about haven’t been.”whispered the captain at a press conference, shortly after the cruel elimination of the Blues against South Africa (28-29), Sunday October 15 in the quarter-finals of the World Cup. “I don’t want to be bitter […]but I am not sure that the arbitration was up to the challenge”continued the French captain before calling his audience to witness: “And what did you think about it with your outside view?”
It was “his” competition, and the Gersois had done everything to compete in this quarter – and what a comeback! – 24 days after his maxillo-zygomatic fracture. His frustration an hour after the final whistle is, in this sense, audible. “Having refereed him several times, he has unrivaled human qualities, he is the ‘more more “respect”says Laurent Cardona, former Top 14 referee. But what concrete criticism does Antoine Dupont and some of his associates have against the refereeing body, embodied on the field by the New Zealander Ben O’Keeffe?
First there is the visible side of the iceberg. This forward from Eben Etzebeth in front of his goal for example, to deliberately stop a ready-made try (6th) just after the first, planted by Cyril Baille. The man in black judged that this was a step backwards and did without the use of video. “That would have deserved at least a yellow card”, believes Cardona. A penalty try could also have been agreed. “We must take a 12 or 14 point lead and a few minutes later, we are 7-7”illustrated coach Fabien Galthié.
“The refereeing was lacking in consistency and in the assessment of certain situations, systematically to the disadvantage of the French team”
Laurent Cardona, former Top 14 refereeat franceinfo: sport
There is still this supersonic rise from winger Cheslin Kolbe to counter a transformation from Thomas Ramos (22nd). It is difficult to discern in slow motion whether the Springbok leaves before Thomas Ramos starts his run, but said image was only broadcast after the match. The only live shot available does not show where the ex-Toulousain is leaving from, and the video referee did not warn Ben O’Keeffe, any more than on the few commotions with Jesse Kriel’s forward elbow.
Rucks, the crux of the problem
“The TMO and the surrounding referees have the time to review the images like us and have the right to take part in the arbitration,” noted Fabien Galthié on this subject. This limitation responds to instructions from World Rugby, keen not to interrupt the rhythm with untimely calls for video. This intervened once, to sanction Etzebeth with a yellow card confirmed by the “bunker” for a header on Uini Atonio (40th). The mitigating circumstance retained – the giant second row ducks – is understandable.
But in truth, these isolated cases did not trigger the ire of the Blues, who were quicker to point the finger at South African behavior in the gathering areas (also called “rucks”). The Blues regretted an overall constant in the match more than the facts of the game at the moment. “When they accumulate, they are notorious”noted Galthié.
A few minutes later, his resentment was illustrated by hooker Peato Mauvaka: “They were coming in on the sides or not coming out of the tackle… We would have thought we would have several penalties for us, that wasn’t the case”. In these areas, World Rugby instructs players to “immediately fall back” into these rucks, to facilitate the release of the ball. “It’s a very difficult area to referee, but the South Africans often went over the limit there”says Cardona.
Ben O’Keeffe changed his habits
“When we advance 60 meters and slow down in the rucks, it’s still quite easy to whistle”, continued Antoine Dupont. At the start of the second half, the Blues camped for a long time in the opposing 40 meters, without obtaining a penalty which could have allowed Thomas Ramos to widen a narrow gap. During the game, the South Africans were penalized six times. It’s very little, but it’s as much as the French, and this above all testifies to the very lax character of Ben O’Keeffe, keen to keep the ball alive as much as possible.
“I’m not going to say that it was intentional, I certainly don’t see Ben O’Keeffe as a dishonest person. But his inability to manage the match deprived the French team of a semi-final.”
Laurent Cardona, discipline manager at Soyaux-Angoulêmeat franceinfo: sport
This doctrine is however the opposite of the habits of the New Zealander, renowned for being picky in the rucks, as during the match against Uruguay (15 penalties in total against the French). His appointment five days before the game allowed the Blues to prepare with these habits in mind. They did not expect such a turnaround.
In his communication, the referee preferred to be educational on Sunday by ordering the South African defenders to leave the ruck zones or to release the tackled player once on the ground. The exchanges between O’Keeffe and Dupont, noted in the second half, demonstrated a divergence of point of view on these points. “It’s long, we can’t play fast balls”, cursed the scrum half after the break. Response from the official – in French: “I understand what you mean, I’m looking.”.
The South African adaptation
If they did not generate a penalty, these slow ball exits, by definition, prevented the Blues from implementing the dynamic game – even though they lacked gas at the end. The same one, made of passes after contacts, which had put them ahead in the first act. “If the ball comes out faster and is available, we finish the action differentlylamented Galthié about the last French offensive, once the time had expired.
“The South Africans tried, saw that the referee would not take themcontinues Laurent Cardona. And like all intelligent players, they continued to adapt, slowing down ball releases by barely pretending to go out, to give the defense the ability to recover by gaining time.”
In this sense, this French frustration is understandable, even if all their evening woes cannot be attributable to Mr. O’Keeffe, completely foreign to the French shortcomings in high-footed plays or late offensive support. “To err is human unfortunately, it was not the refereeing which caused the match to be lost”, concluded center Jonathan Danty. At least the episode allows us to put the so-called values to rest once and for all, according to which rugby is impervious to refereeing criticism.