1
Antoine Dupont undergoes surgery on injured knee ahead of long absence
By Josh Raisey
France captain Antoine Dupont has undergone surgery on his injured knee, according to French outlet l’Equipe.
ADVERTISEMENT
The scrum-half suffered the second cruciate ligament rupture to his right knee of his career in round four of the Guinness Six Nations against Ireland, leaving the field at the Aviva Stadium after 28 minutes.
France went on to win the Six Nations title the week later, defeating Scotland in Paris, with the 28-year-old watching from the sidelines, being met with a rapturous ovation from the Stade de France crowd when his face appeared on screen. He was on hand after the match to hobble on stage and lift the trophy, which was stand-in captain Gregory Alldritt’s desire.
Following a short break after the Championship, Dupont went under the knife on Monday in Toulouse, with l’Equipe also reporting he suffered injuries to his “medial meniscus and collateral ligament” as well.
Six Nations
P
W
L
D
PF
PA
PD
BP T
BP-7
BP
Total
1
France
5
4
1
0
21
2
England
5
4
1
0
20
3
Ireland
5
4
1
0
19
4
Scotland
5
2
3
0
11
5
Italy
5
1
4
0
5
6
Wales
5
0
5
0
3
The 2021 World Rugby player of the year also ruptured his ACL in 2018, which kept him out of action for eight months, and is again expected to be sidelined for six to nine months.
The relationship between France and Ireland has turned sour in the aftermath of the injury, with Fabien Galthie describing the clearout by Tadhg Beirne and Andrew Porter as “reprehensible”.
ADVERTISEMENT
“In terms of the action, in my opinion it was reprehensible, and there are ways to study and analyse it,” he said to France 2 TV.
“We feel for him today. He is suffering and we are suffering with him.”
Interim Ireland head coach Simon Easterby fired back days later, criticising France’s conduct following the injury.
“Without getting myself into trouble here, I just think it’s the game unfortunately,” said Easterby.
“No player goes out to intentionally injure another player. For everyone, or for the majority of people watching, looking at it afterwards, everyone felt like it was a rugby incident which was really unfortunate.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Whatever the insinuations were from different people post-game, it’s disappointing because the unfortunate thing is people who don’t really understand the game pick up on it.”
News, stats, live rugby and more! Download the new RugbyPass app on the App Store (iOS) and Google Play (Android) now!
Sux DuPont got hurt but it was a normal rugby incident. It’s a contact sport, accidents will happen, people get hurt.
We don’t need to go all Jan 6th with outrage every time someone breaks something or gets their head bumped.
The issue here is that there is no clarity about why the Irish clearout was deemed legal. Rugby needs a mechanism to review its controversial incidents, particularly ones where a player is seriously injured.
I can understand why the citing was not taken forward, because having to answer to a citing panel normally presumes the guilt of the cited player and they have to prove their innocence. But it’s just not sustainable that there is nothing between being cited on suspicion of foul play and “no case to answer”.
I think rugby needs an Incident Panel that can be used to investigate serious injuries or controversial incidents where there is the possibility of an officiating error or foul play, that can be used to explain the decision taken on the pitch and set the future precedent for how it should be officiated.
For instance, it would be helpful for fans, players and officials to understand how Beirne’s entry to the ruck in which Dupont was injured met the standard of care that players owe to each other, and where the line is drawn between a legal ruck entry and a reckless one.
Rugby incident, happens scores of times in a game. Dupont wasn’t even hit with much force, Beirne just clears him and force is added from behind from Furlong.
We can’t have special treatment for France just because their star is the one who gets unlucky.
There is already a lack of clarity around actual Written decisions and how they differ from bans.
For example, Mauvaka the official written decision states Mauvaka to have made a ‘reckless’, ‘deliberate’, shot ‘to the head’ of a ‘player in a vulnerable position’ on the ground. That’s a high level entry ban of 10 weeks. However, the press release did not show ‘reckless’ or ‘vulnerable player’ ticked alloweing Mauvaka to enter at the 6 match mid range.
Similarly Ntamack’s written report showed that it was a ‘reckless’, ‘head shot’ with ‘injury’. The injury was a fully displaced nose bone and Ntamack apologizes for the injury in the written report. This should give Ntamack an entry level of 6 weeks but in the Press Release ‘Injured’ is unticked meaning Ntamack gets away with a 4 week entry ban. This is not counting the fact that the world knows he deliberately injured Thomas.
No. France have been abusing the system for years, recently spreading disinformation about the Ringrose ban in order to undermine confidence in the process.
Giving France even more special treatment is not the answer.