During the UFC 319 main event between Dricus du Plessis and Khamzat Chimaev, referee Marc Goddard‘s decision to repeatedly stand the fighters up caught significant attention, contributing to the ongoing Dricus du Plessis refereeing controversy. Herb Dean, a fellow official, defended Goddard’s calls, arguing that breaking up prolonged grappling without active advancement was justified. However, former bantamweight champion Aljamain Sterling publicly disagreed with this stance.
In the match, Chimaev controlled nearly 22 minutes on the ground, scoring a unanimous decision victory with scores of 50-44. Despite this dominance, Goddard intervened twice in the championship rounds to stand the fighters back up, even as Chimaev maintained a strong grappling position. This prompted confusion and criticism from fans and experts alike.
Herb Dean Supports Referee Marc Goddard’s Standups
In an interview with Helen Yee, Herb Dean explained his support for Goddard’s approach during the fight, emphasizing the importance of encouraging active attempts to improve positions rather than allowing fighters to remain passively dominant on the ground. Dean expressed that holding a dominant position without pressing an attack could be considered a defensive way to waste time, something he feels referees should discourage.
“Do we want people to achieve a dominant position, which, if you’re not using to beat your opponent, could almost be looked at as a hiding place, as a place to burn time?… I’m okay with those standups Marc Goddard did.”
—Herb Dean, Referee
Aljamain Sterling Challenges Subjectivity of Referee Intervention
Aljamain Sterling took to X to voice his opposition to Dean’s justification, criticizing the idea that a referee’s subjective feelings should determine when to interrupt grappling exchanges. Sterling argued this approach unfairly punishes fighters who maintain control, especially when their opponents are unable to improve their own position.
“That’s such [a] subjective thing to interfere with. You’re basically saying if you FEEL a way and the opponent is unskilled enough to change their losing position, that the ref can and should interfere? That’s what I’m getting. And I disagree.”
—Aljamain Sterling, Former Bantamweight Champion
Dricus du Plessis’ Coach Expresses Frustration with Referee’s Handling
Contrasting the division among commentators, Dricus du Plessis’ coach, Morne Visser of CIT Performance Institute, criticized the referee for not doing enough to keep the fight engaging. Visser suggested Goddard failed to end periods of inactivity promptly, allowing Chimaev to stall effectively and limiting the pace of the contest.
“I think we could have done a lot better, but I also think the ref should have done better… I do think the referee should have just made that fight a bit more live… “[Chimaev] just did enough… to keep the ref [from] not letting the fight stand up. But I think when it goes that slow for 20 seconds, first warning, second warning, five seconds later, third, five seconds later, stand the fight up, man.”
—Morne Visser, Coach of Dricus du Plessis
Implications for Future UFC Refereeing and Fighter Strategies
The Dricus du Plessis refereeing controversy underscores the ongoing tension within MMA officiating regarding the balance between allowing fighters to control and protecting action-packed competition. This debate involving officials like Herb Dean and criticism from prominent fighters such as Aljamain Sterling reveals how subjective elements influence refereeing decisions in high-stakes fights. As UFC evolves, the way referees manage grappling encounters, especially in championship bouts, could change to address these concerns and maintain competitive fairness without compromising entertainment value.