The ABs finally got a hard game for the first time in this tournament and thankfully they won it! But respect to the French side they played a good and strong match and if Trin-duc scored that penalty i think it would be the French celebrating the world cup. Nobody believed the French would get to the final but they did and they played like they had nothing to lose. And they brought it to the kiwis. But why complain about bad refereeing etc. the French lost period. And if you look at the whole tournament the best team won! I think if the French keep playing like they played in the final the 6nations are up for the grab. So all you French supporters stop complaining about the ref i don't think the ABs won because of bad refereeing they were just the team with the most points on the board at the end of 80min....;-)
The French are second in the World that's not bad am i right??
You summarized my feeling few after the match. I told myself : "Im french, french channel, I only looked for NZ faults etc..." So I got the match viewed by fox sports and anglo-saxons commentators, to know their mind about the referee's decisions (and because TF1 just make me cry, poor analysis, abstracted explanations...).
And I have been happy to note that I was not too inobjective.
After several phases, at the 4th min the commentator says the french should have been given a penalty several times for not rolling away at the breakdown; and all along the match, Mc Caw in particular did a dirty job in the rucks like this (not talking about the hit on Parra "accident of movement" said ironically the speaker 12th min).
Some very obvious off side not whistled, (11th50 sc the kiwi chaser on an up and go was clearly off side not 1 meter), whereas Parra was sanctioned severely at 4thmin45sc when the 9 black almost touch the ball, parra starts then goes back=penalty... After that, the ref gives a penalty against the black (12thmin05sc) in a ruck the black was legal here, the ref missed obvious things and over-arbitrated others.
He was neither serene nor equilibrate.
It changes everything when instead of camping on the other side of the field you have to defend against a so powerful team. The ten first minutes have been decisive, french attacks slowed down then unjustified penalty after having let Mc Caw pourrish the game, and no score.
After that, from 24th min to half time, the blacks played so were more exposed to handling errors than penalties, nothing scandalous to notice, but occasions missed are never recovered.
I like "liberal" referees, but I think he took pressure of being in NZ front of the Kiwi public, and also from anglo-saxons medias all along the week, that just crushed the frenchs on paper (history of french bad things not only about rugby...Hostile atmosphere). He was cold to whistle against NZ several times at the beginning then he felt bad and tried to reequilibrate inappropriately.
Someone had a nice formula, saying that after all, the blacks deserve to win the WC and the frenchs the final, I agree with it.
But I also think that a WC is the result of many factors that were gathered this year. It could take a long before suchs ingredients be mixed again. Big deception to lose like this, the difference is too tiny for me to accept a defeat in the play and only in the play.