The Springboks’ one-sided win over Wales this past weekend was ultimately marred by a moment of madness from Eben Etzebeth, who was shown a straight red card for making contact with the eyes of flanker Alex Man.
Etzebeth will now undergo a disciplinary hearing to present his case, and review all the factors that came into play.
There is simply no doubt that his actions were reckless and always illegal, and he will face a significant ban as a result.
Where will the Eben Etzebeth incident fall in the suspension range?
Although the big South African lock is known for his aggressive style of play, he actually doesn’t boast a bad disciplinary record, despite often being at the forefront of many scuffles over the years.
This is the first time Etzebeth has been involved in such a serious act of foul play, while it’s understood to be his first red card at international level.
When looking at the incident itself, some footage and still images have also emerged to suggest Etzebeth may have been on the receiving end of some dirty play himself before he retaliated.
Although it won’t excuse his response, it could fall into the category of “the existence of provocation”.
If Etzebeth is found guilty of a mid-range offence, he could be suspended for 18 weeks, while any top-end offence finding could see him banned for 24 weeks or more.
There do seem to be some mitigating circumstances at play, and so his ‘eye gouge’ could be seen in the ‘the low-end entry point for intentional contact with eye(s), which would lead to a suspension in the region of 12 weeks.
What World Rugby will look at
“The assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct shall be determined by reference to the following features:
(a) whether the offending was intentional;
(b) whether the offending was reckless, that is the Player knew (or should have known) there was a risk of committing an act(s) of Foul Play;
(c) the nature of the actions, the manner in which the offence was committed including part of body used (for example, fist, elbow, knee or boot);
(d) the existence of provocation;
(e) whether the Player acted in retaliation and the timing of such;
(f) whether the Player acted in self-defence (that is whether the Player used a reasonable degree of force in defending himself);
(g) the effect of the Player’s actions on the victim (for example, extent of injury, removal of victim Player from the game);
(h) the effect of the Player’s actions on the Match;
(i) the vulnerability of the victim Player including part of victim’s body involved/affected, position of the victim Player, ability to defend himself;
(j) the level of participation in the offending and level of premeditation;
(k) whether the conduct of the offending Player was completed or amounted to an attempt; and
(l) any other feature of the Player’s conduct in relation to or connected with the offending.”
