Loose Pass: Antoine Dupont injury could break ‘Messi-dependencia’ and were Blair Murray and Peter O’Mahony calls correct?
France will be without star Antoine Dupont for a long period of time.
This week we will mostly be picking through the controversies of the Six Nations weekend…
France’s release from a handbrake?
It is a long-held view of this columnist that despite his being quite clearly the best individual player in the world, France losing their dependency on Antoine Dupont would be no bad thing for the team’s progress.
A well-documented aspect of the decline of Barcelona was the so-called ‘Messi-dependencia’, where the team eventually struggled to do anything without him. Finances played a part there but the perceived importance of Messi dominated so much of the discourse that a disproportional amount of resource went into ensuring he was present at all times.
France does not have that problem yet, but this columnist is not the only one to have put forward the opinion that France actually played better after Dupont went off on Saturday – and now have a huge opportunity to ensure that the hysteria surrounding the talismanic scrum-half can be watered down a little.
Maxime Lucu facilitated France’s équipe la bombe superbly, simply because he distributed well and made good decisions, rather than working with his feet and trying to be a nuisance as Dupont does. He does not bring the individual flair, but he does enable the machine to run smoothly. Baptiste Serin’s highlight reel from this season is as long as one of Dupont’s raking 50-22 kicks. Nolann le Garrec might be suffering a little because of his club’s form, but it doesn’t make him any less of a prospect who might walk into other Six Nations matchday squads.
When Dupont got injured in the World Cup, the hysteria verged on the ludicrous. The decision to have him play in the quarter-final was debatable. Props to his mental strength to be able to shut out the noise and the pain, but props also to Lucu, who humbly waited on the sidelines while all around forgot about how good he actually is and lamented the injury to Dupont instead. The impression given by all was that France simply couldn’t do it without him.
Now he’s out for nine months, which is a horrible miss to the game, but as Lucu proved on Saturday, it is not as horrible a miss to France as maybe all are making out. Perhaps the potential looming spell of success without Dupont might release the country from a possible over-reliance?
On jumps and jumping
Would Wales have completed the comeback had Taulupe Faletau’s try stood? Improbable, but at least more possible than it ended up being. It’s been a hotly-debated moment; so it’s time to dust off the lawbook and have a review.
The relevant law is 9.11 – Dangerous Play: Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.
The key word is ‘over’. Blair Murray certainly jumps, but is it over Jamie Ritchie? Is it dangerous?
It’s as tight as the proverbial. Certainly as Murray jumps and Ritchie leans in, Murray’s knee leads high enough to be at the level of the Scotland flanker’s head, exactly the kind of thing the game needs to get rid of. Moreover, Ritchie’s good tackle technique means that had Murray not jumped, Ritchie would have put shoulder to thigh. At the moment of potential contact, Ritchie’s head is in serious danger because of Murray’s action and not because of his own.
Although Murray does flick his leading leg out to the side in a hurdler’s action to avoid Ritchie’s arm, you can clearly see from the second still here that Murray’s bulk is over the Ritchie tackle contact zone, rather than to the side of it. Spectacular, yes. A worthy effort, yes. But with Ritchie close enough to make a textbook side-on shoulder-to-thigh tackle, dangerous as well. The correct call.
Backing off, but not down
While French fans howl with fury at the Dupont incident – which this column is going nowhere near – the Irish continue to protest furiously that Peter O’Mahony was taken out off the ball for France’s second try: a crucial moment in the Six Nations game.
Referee Angus Gardner, who generally did superbly to facilitate a fine game and remain ice-cold under huge pressure from chatty captains all game, refused Ireland‘s claims of foul play, arguing that O’Mahony was backing off the ruck anyway.
Again, tight. O’Mahony was – lightly – the tackle assist in bringing Peato Mauvaka to ground and so Thibaud Flament rightly targets him for the clearout. Indeed, O’Mahony is still holding onto Mauvaka as he goes to ground with Flament barely a metre away. What is probably the most important aspect here is where O’Mahony is. As Flament moves in, O’Mahony is clearly beyond the back foot of the tackle, holding onto Mauvaka, and thus a part of the contact situation. He is fair game when Flament goes for the clean, despite how he ends up by the time the France lock makes contact.
By the time Flament makes contact with O’Mahony, the Irishman is quite clearly stepping back, just as clearly as he is bracing to absorb the contact.
But equally relevant is where Flament goes through. As you can see from the second still, Flament is to the side of the tackle and does not clean over it, nor does he at any time bind onto the player on the ground.
So once O’Mahony releases Mauvaka, is there a ruck at all? You need a player to be over the ball for a ruck to have formed. Flament demonstrably does not clean over the ball and he is in front of the ball when he makes contact, which means he has taken out someone off the ball. This is a decision purely down to the referee’s interpretation and is justifiable either way.
Ireland can feel hard done by here – although would it have saved them? Doubtful.
