DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 145651--------------------------------------------------
Re: Etzebeth in trouble
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: December 5, 2025, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I suspect people may be a little fed up with listening to one
person's view.
#Post#: 145655--------------------------------------------------
Re: Etzebeth in trouble
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: December 6, 2025, 1:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> It's called a discussion. It's where different people ask
questions of each other, rather than just listening to one
person's point of view.
>
--- End Quote ---
I fully appreciate that, Quinky. Discussions are usually aided
by understanding the purpose of questions, and asking for
clarification was in service to the discussion. I don't know why
you're being like this.
#Post#: 145659--------------------------------------------------
Re: Etzebeth in trouble
DIR By: Mayor West
Date: December 6, 2025, 3:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think he was lucky to only get a minimum ban. It looked pretty
bad on video. He had full control and sight of what he was
doing. Is there a difference between “contact with the eyes “
and actual gouging as an offence. Can anybody remember what ban
Sinkler received for his incident. It’s the only one I remember
off hand as a comparison.
#Post#: 145663--------------------------------------------------
Re: Etzebeth in trouble
DIR By: Quinky
Date: December 6, 2025, 4:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JammyGit link ---
>
> I fully appreciate that, Quinky. Discussions are usually aided
by understanding the purpose of questions, and asking for
clarification was in service to the discussion. I don't know why
you're being like this.
>
--- End Quote ---
Apologies if I've misunderstood your response to an earlier
post. You stated: "Nothing in the report suggests that Mann did
anything to warrant getting eyegouged." I took that to mean that
I was implying that it was warranted in some way, which I've
absolutely not said. Eben did wrong. He was punished. Some on
here seem to think that it's only Springboks who do this
(bringing up Schalk Burger - seriously?), without the faintest
mention of... let's see, Hartley, Sinckler, Bergamasco...
There is a thinly veiled dislike of all things South African on
here. That's fine, as those at the top are often vilified. You
only have to look at previous All Black teams to see that.
Personally I try to take a balanced view of things. Eben
committed an act of foul play. He admitted it. He's been
punished. He's also played 140+ tests and that's his first red
card in those games, with only a few yellows. That counts for
something. He's a hard player, but 99.9% of the time he's fair.
At some point, an England player will be found guilty of the
same offence. Will the same people be calling for a life ban? A
prison sentence? I doubt it. As long as hey get the same
process, and the same method of calculating the punishment,
that's all we should really hope for.
Again, apologies if you think I overreacted. Hopefully this will
explain it.
#Post#: 145665--------------------------------------------------
Re: Etzebeth in trouble
DIR By: Rugbycat
Date: December 6, 2025, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mayor West link ---
>
> I think he was lucky to only get a minimum ban. It looked
pretty bad on video. He had full control and sight of what he
was doing. Is there a difference between “contact with the eyes
“ and actual gouging as an offence. Can anybody remember what
ban Sinkler received for his incident. It’s the only one I
remember off hand as a comparison.
>
--- End Quote ---
No all come under.
9.12 A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone.
Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting,
punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any
part of the arm, shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling,
tripping or kicking.
Then down to the panel when cited to work out intentional or
reckless and entry point for ban and mitigation.
Which is very open to interpretation and opens up endless
debates.
#Post#: 145667--------------------------------------------------
Re: Etzebeth in trouble
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: December 6, 2025, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> Apologies if I've misunderstood your response to an earlier
post. You stated: "Nothing in the report suggests that Mann did
anything to warrant getting eyegouged." I took that to mean that
I was implying that it was warranted in some way, which I've
absolutely not said. Eben did wrong. He was punished. Some on
here seem to think that it's only Springboks who do this
(bringing up Schalk Burger - seriously?), without the faintest
mention of... let's see, Hartley, Sinckler, Bergamasco...
>
> There is a thinly veiled dislike of all things South African
on here. That's fine, as those at the top are often vilified.
You only have to look at previous All Black teams to see that.
Personally I try to take a balanced view of things. Eben
committed an act of foul play. He admitted it. He's been
punished. He's also played 140+ tests and that's his first red
card in those games, with only a few yellows. That counts for
something. He's a hard player, but 99.9% of the time he's fair.
>
> At some point, an England player will be found guilty of the
same offence. Will the same people be calling for a life ban? A
prison sentence? I doubt it. As long as hey get the same
process, and the same method of calculating the punishment,
that's all we should really hope for.
>
> Again, apologies if you think I overreacted. Hopefully this
will explain it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for explaining. My comment about Mann was to say that
I didn't think there was anything to justify the offence - ie
that what Mann did wasn't really worthy of comment and that it
wasn't something that altered my opinion on the main topic. It
wasn't aimed at you, it just didn't seem particularly relevant
or interesting to me.
The last time an English player was considered to have
deliberately attempted to maim an opponent, he was rightly
criticised in all quarters and many, many people called for him
to be banned for life. I also remember more arguable incidents
involving the likes of Hartley and Marler resulting in many
people demanding they be banned from the sport. I don't think
we've seen many (any?) people calling for the same for Etzebeth
but I haven't been omnipresent on social media or anything. It
is remarkable for an offense like this to be ruled deliberate
rather than just reckless, though, which certainly adds to the
opprobrium.
I think SA are a lightning rod for criticism because of Rassie's
repeated fire-stoking, the targeting of officials, the recent
drugs offences, and a few flashpoint moments that also seem to
bring out the worst in the SA fans on social media. On the flip
side I think SA has a large number of players who seem almost
universally loved (or at least admired), like PSDT, Kolisi,
Kolbe, pretty much every prop, etc. However, when the coach
deliberately fosters an us-against-the-world Mourinho style
atmosphere, it does ultimately cause a lot of friction. They do
it because it works. But I think in this situation it's just
genuine disgust at a vile and dangerous act deliberately
performed by a high profile player.
#Post#: 145709--------------------------------------------------
Re: Etzebeth in trouble
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: December 7, 2025, 12:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, we were talking about Etzebeth. Who deflected by
bringing up other players? Classic tactic from my wife when on
very rare occasions I am beginning to win the argument. (Please
don't tell her I said that...I'll give you my Lunch money.....)
#Post#: 145714--------------------------------------------------
Re: Etzebeth in trouble
DIR By: Quinky
Date: December 7, 2025, 2:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: deadlyfrom5yardsout link ---
>
> Anyway, we were talking about Etzebeth. Who deflected by
bringing up other players? Classic tactic from my wife when on
very rare occasions I am beginning to win the argument. (Please
don't tell her I said that...I'll give you my Lunch money.....)
>
--- End Quote ---
Why does your wife bring up other players? [emoji54]
#Post#: 145720--------------------------------------------------
Re: Etzebeth in trouble
DIR By: Yareet
Date: December 7, 2025, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Rugbycat link ---
>
> No all come under.
>
> 9.12 A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone.
Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting,
punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any
part of the arm, shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling,
tripping or kicking.
>
> Then down to the panel when cited to work out intentional or
reckless and entry point for ban and mitigation.
>
>
> Which is very open to interpretation and opens up endless
debates.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think from reading the judgement that there is a difference
and the punishment levels reflect t that.
The same law covers penetration of the eye socket and contact
with the eye are but the panel has to decide which of those two
scenarios actually happened.
#Post#: 145734--------------------------------------------------
Re: Etzebeth in trouble
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: December 8, 2025, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Moore
I have seen all sides of rugby’s disciplinary system and I am
just as confused as you
If there is an overall plan to achieve a more even system then
it needs explaining because confidence is close to being lost
I have been on most sides of rugby’s disciplinary process, and I
must be one of very few players to receive a nine-week ban for
trampling on a player when I had possession of the ball.
It was only the second time in my 17-year senior rugby career
that I was sent off and the disciplinary panel didn’t even
explain their decision, saying that they did not think I would
agree, so there was no point. They were right, I was livid and
felt hard done by, but, looking back and being honest, there
were times when I might have been sent off and escaped, so
things balance out.
After I retired from rugby, I represented a number of players as
part of my law practice and after retiring from law my contact
with the disciplinary system has been limited to representing
players, mostly friends, who have got into trouble. So, I can
say with some evidence that I am not unfamiliar with the way
things work. I can also say that as World Rugby works towards
balancing the need to deter players from offending and the need
to keep games competitive, I am almost as confused as everybody
else as to what level of sanction is applied to what offence.
I am not just talking about the social media arguments that
flare up online but the genuine mystification of people who know
quite a bit about rugby at the higher levels and who, like me,
are struggling to make sense of what is going on. If, as I am
told, there is an overall plan to achieve a more even system,
then somebody from World Rugby needs to come out and explain
what it is and how it is going to work because the average rugby
follower’s confidence is close to being lost.
Whether this is or is not justified, there is a widespread
feeling that the bigger and better teams get favours that are
denied your average player. What is certainly true is that the
ultimate outcome of a disciplinary hearing very much depends on
what legal representation you can afford, which should not be a
factor but undoubtedly is. It is for this reason that with any
touring party or any World Cup squad, one of the most important
choices is which legal counsel you take with you. The difference
between an in-tournament ban of one game or three can have a
very real influence on how your side fares.
In the recent Eben Etzebeth case, a 12-week ban for gouging was
handed down by a panel that included Leon Lloyd, a former
professional player and a very bright man, and someone who knows
how players and their representatives try to manipulate the
system. Etzebeth’s claim was that he genuinely thought that he
was about to be “rag-dolled” by Wales’ Alex Mann and therefore
reacted as he did. I don’t believe that Etzebeth is afraid of
anybody and in a set-to between those two players there would
only be one winner, and and that man wouldn’t be wearing a red
shirt. It is far more likely that Etzebeth was angry with the
confrontation and determined to sort it out. This view of the
offence bears out the finding that his act was intentional and
Etzebeth was not acting in self-defence in any meaningful way.
The vague notion of provocation was only marginally relevant,
hence Etzebeth was not given the now customary discount of 50
per cent off his sentence.
Credit was rightly given for this being the first red card in
Etzebeth’s 141-cap Test career, but the fact is that the ban
will have no effect on his international career. You can argue
that bans should be enforced at the level of rugby in which
offence occurred but if, hypothetically, Etzebeth does not play
for South Africa again for some reason, he would escape with no
sanction at all. If this had happened in a club game and
immediately before a World Cup, Etzebeth would be able to play
in rugby’s most important tournament, which would defy ordinary
notions of justice.
Players, and their agents, make much of the fact that they are
the shop window for the game and therefore deserve the rewards
that this brings. Given this influence, you might argue that
they should carry a higher duty when it comes to foul play, but
the problem with this argument is that the potential
consequences of an offence like gouging do not differ according
to the level at which they are committed.
What really does not sit right with most rugby fans is that
Etzebeth has been able to move from being a Sharks’ player to
one of their coaches whilst he is serving his ban. That sort of
loophole is something that World Rugby should consider closing
immediately.
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 11
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page