Springbok enforcer escapes with 12-week ban for blatant eye gouge

Eben Etzebeth has been hit with a 12-week ban after a disciplinary panel found the South Africa lock intentionally gouged the eye of Wales flanker Alex Mann.

The Springboks’ record cap holder received a straight red card after the television match official spotted that he jammed his thumb into the eye of Mann in the closing stages of South Africa’s 73-0 victory over Wales in Cardiff.

The disciplinary panel ruled that “he knew what he was doing”.

As it was deemed a mid-range offence, Etzebeth was facing an 18-week ban, but that was reduced by six weeks in part because he had a clean record since 2012. Etzebeth had admitted at the hearing on Tuesday that he had committed an act of foul play and apologised to Mann, but claimed the act was not intentional during a melee at the end of the game.

The panel concluded otherwise, stating in their full written judgment: “His thumb is pressed against the closed eye, driving W7’s head back. He was looking directly at W7’s face before and when he did so. There was no obstruction to his line of sight. He cannot have failed to have appreciated what he was doing before and when his thumb went into and remained pressed in W7’s eye.”

It is the longest ban for gouging in more than a decade, but the verdict is likely to please no one with the possible exception of Springboks coach Rassie Erasmus.

Gouging is rugby union’s cardinal sin and the intentional verdict demonstrates Etzebeth was deliberately trying to insert his thumb into Mann’s eye. The results of these types of actions can be catastrophic. In 2010, amateur player Clarence Harding lost the sight of one eye after being gouged playing for Gravesend against Maidstone in a Kent Cup game. Banning one of the sport’s highest-profile players for at least six months would have sent an unmistakable message that his form of behaviour is beyond the pale.

And yet Etzebeth’s ban has already been reduced by a third in part for “good behaviour” and he will be free to play from April. Effectively he may only miss four matches. Under South African player welfare regulations, Springboks are entitled to an eight-week rest period, which can be conveniently overlaid across his suspension.

The Sharks, his URC team, will suffer as a result, but Erasmus will doubtless welcome the extra rest it affords the 34-year-old ahead of the inaugural Nations Championship, in which they open against England. Effectively neither Etzebeth nor the Springboks have been punished beyond the stigma of the offence.

The problem is World Rugby’s disciplinary system does not provide a book-throwing device. Instead they must meticulously follow a set framework around entry points and mitigation.

Read the full written decision of the case and it is clear the lengths that the panel of chair Christopher Quinlan, KC, along with former England internationals Leon Lloyd and Becky Essex went to establish that Etzebeth’s actions were deliberate, even measuring the milliseconds his thumb rested on Mann’s eye.

The panel articulated their reasons why this was a mid-range entry, stating that it “involved the pressing of the thumb directly on and into the eye for about one second, as opposed to a transient brushing across the eye contact”.

The panel added. “It was retaliatory but it was far out of proportion to the pulling of his shirt and anything which had gone before.”

Once they arrived at this conclusion the entry point for suspension is 18 weeks in the World Rugby system and then you apply mitigation for admission of guilt, remorse, conduct and his remarkably clean record. Hence 12 weeks. You cannot fault the process, but if you take issue with the leniency of the sentence then the fault lies with a set framework of sanctions and mitigations.

The alternative would be to have a single Judge Dredd-type figure administering punishments on their own whim. Back in 2009, Jeff Blackett went out of his way to hand David Attoub, a French prop, a 70-week ban for gouging Stephen Ferris. But then you create a whole new set of problems around inconsistency and disproportionate punishments.

And yet, astonishingly, there is a subset of rugby fans who believe that Etzebeth is the victim of a grave miscarriage of justice. This subset, coincidentally, consists entirely of South African fans. To them, each and every decision that goes against the Springboks is the result of the deep state of World Rugby. This is a conspiracy so vast and powerful that South Africa have won back-to-back World Cups and Malcolm Marx has just been crowned men’s World Player of Year.

But never mind the facts. Did you not see the 2027 World Cup draw where South Africa will have to face New Zealand and France before the final? No doubt the same forces – i.e. luck – were at work when they played Japan and Wales in the quarter-final and semi-final of the 2019 World Cup.

Or what about the three red cards that the Springboks received this autumn? Never mind two of them were as clear as day (Etzebeth and Lood de Jager) and the other (Franco Mostert) had his overturned.

Their troll army quickly concluded that Etzebeth must have reacted in retaliation to being gouged himself by Mann on the basis of a series of blurry screenshots. The panel reveals that Etzebeth confirmed at no stage did this occur. Rather he lashed out of fear of being “rag-dolled”. No doubt, like all good conspiracy theorists, they will twist the truth to suit whatever narrative they have at play.

After the game in Cardiff, Etzebeth, who holds South Africa’s national record with 141 Test caps, came back on the field and tried to shake Mann’s hand, but the fuming Wales hooker instead shared words with Etzebeth.

South Africa coach Rassie Erasmus even conceded post-game it was a legitimate send-off.

“I don’t want to be controversial but no, it didn’t look good,” he said. “It justified the red card. How it happened and why it happened, whether it was provoked, I’m not sure. But the optics weren’t great. That’s definitely not the way we would have liked to end the game.”

Etzebeth had never been red-carded before, despite having his standing as one of the toughest enforcers in world rugby. The 203-centimetre, 120-kilogram lock has often been involved in scuffles and is known for his aggression.

He was cleared of eye gouging Scotland’s Greig Laidlaw in 2012 but was suspended for headbutting Nathan Sharpe in the same year.

Springboks captain Siya Kolisi defended Etzebeth, who has a reputation as an enforcer but had never been red-carded before.

“I’m sure he didn’t mean to do that on purpose,” Kolisi said. “You go for an eye gouge, you know what happens after that [long sanctions].

“He said ‘sorry’ to the guy already, but I don’t want that to be the highlight of the day. It’s been a good day.”

The Telegraph

News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.