D-Day for Ebenezer's AKA Eben Papzebeth formerly know is Eben ETZEBETH

Let’s hope the committee viewed the incident in normal speed then

The Wallie wasn’t even blinking afterwards…..just looking straight ahead out of two wide open, undamaged eyes. Erasmus should never have commented on it and our press/talking heads demonstrated how if you give them a bone, they run with it. Everybody used the term eye gouge which is defined as follows:

Eye-gouging is the act of pressing or tearing the eye using the fingers or instruments. Eye-gouging involves a very high risk of eye injury, such as eye loss or blindness.

Stupid of Eben and the gleeful Rhonda attack on him, backed up by his Gimp who he himself calls Dense is to be expected. But it’s quite likely that everything the Boks have achieved wouldn’t have happened without Eben. We should remember that when some are calling for him to be burned at the stake.

Let’s hope the committee viewed the incident in normal speed then

They definitely will, just like refs on the field often ask the TMO to show them the incident at normal speed.

Mozart

Please give me a reference to the following statement made ny you:-

"Erasmus took a lot of pressure off the committee by opining on the matter and saying it looked bad. Most coaches would have been a lot more neutral.TheSouth African rugby press immediately adopted the eye gouge terminology."

It wasn’t in quotes, from which you conclude….what?

12 weeks then. Not so bad. A well deserved rest.

Mozart

I asked you for the intenet reference since I want to cofirm what Erasmus really said which let to your quoted statement,

Since you refuse to provide the reference as to what Erasmus actually said - it confrims it is just another concoction you dreamed up to discredit Erasmus,

So provide the reference and prove what you wrote on site is the truth.

Here is the outcome of the ban decision:-

Etzebeth appeared before an independent Disciplinary Committee via video link, having received a red card for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.12 in the match between South Africa and Wales on Saturday, November 22 2025.

The independent Disciplinary Committee was chaired by Christopher Quinlan KC, joined by former international players Leon Lloyd (England) and Becky Essex (England).

Having considered the Player’s and other evidence and reviewed the footage, and for the reasons set out in the full written decision (which is available now in the discipline section of the Six Nations Rugby website), the Disciplinary Committee have determined that contact with the eye was intentional and a mid-range entry point of eighteen weeks/matches was appropriate.

Some mitigating factors, including the player’s previous record, were applied by the Committee, reducing the eighteen-week entry point by six weeks to twelve weeks/matches.

The suspension will cover the following matches

December 7, 2025: Toulouse v Sharks (EPCR Champions Cup)

December 13, 2025: Sharks v Saracens (EPCR Champions Cup)

December 20, 2025: Sharks v Bulls (United Rugby Championship)

January 3, 2026: Lions v Sharks (United Rugby Championship)

January 10, 2026: Sale Sharks v Sharks (EPCR Champions Cup)

January 17, 2026: Sharks v Clermont (EPCR Champions Cup)

January 24, 2026: Stormers v Sharks (United Rugby Championship)

January 31, 2026: Sharks v Stormers (United Rugby Championship)

February 21, 2026: Sharks v Lions (United Rugby Championship)

February 28, 2026: Bulls v Sharks (United Rugby Championship)

March 21, 2026: Sharks v Munster (United Rugby Championship)

March 27. 2026: Sharks v Cardiff (United Rugby Championship)

Don't think Eben could have expected much better than that.

Yeah at least it’s not career ending and it’s done him a favour - he can rest for 3 months :)

I read that the Sharks had rescinded his contract earlier today…..

No the Sharks have deregistered him for the 12 weeks he has been banned - nothing to do with contract being rescinded

Ah, that makes a lot more sense. Thank you, Saffolk.

As a Kiwi I most certainly do not think he is a dirty player - This is one off situation and he will learn from it.

This was the best result he could have hoped for...lucky...as for intentional...

...Rooi, this one's for you...Eben sends his regards...oppas!

I see the latest narrative is that Eben is so tough, so big and so strong that if he had wanted to rip Mann's eye out he could have . . . therefore it wasn't intentional.

I mean, really, have you ever heard anything more pathetic in your life?

LMAO!

When it comes to an eye gouge, it's not the power or the strength that determines success, it's the will.

That's all.

Just look at Eben's face and decide for yourself whether he had the will.

Like Bakkies Botha, like Burger Geldenhuys and like James Dalton, Eben is a great Springbok who will always be tarnished.

Greatest lock ever...greatest Bok ever...legend!

I don’t see Bakkies as tarnished, Eben even less so

Mozart

I asked you what did Erasmus say that you claimed made the task of the disciplinary committee easier, You refused to answer that question twice - so the outcome is that it is just another Mozart lie used for another attack on Erasmus.

We kow that your ru gby contribution on this site is absed 90% total B S and the ssue of the Etzebeth ban is just another invention of a habitual liar,

Bakkies head-butt on Jimmy Cowan and Eben's eye-gouge on Mann . . . spin it any way you like but those were very embarrassing for Springbok rugby.

Tarnished.

Nah .... the ear-bite wus the worse, embarrassing, I wanted to hide behind the couch.

The head's sacrosanct therefore 12 weeks probably fair.

What would a punch have cost him?

Not wrong Rooi, the conversation should have been about a victorious Bok team instead it’s mired in a stupid and ugly unpalatable debate.

Will we never learn?

For Uncle BS:

"Springboks Captain Siya Kollisi defended his teammate after the game, stating that he believed it to ‘be an accident’, while Erasmus spoke far more frankly in the post-match press conference.

“I don’t know what I can say at this stage that won’t be controversial,” he began.

“It didn’t look good, and I thought it was a justified red card.

How it happened and why it happened, I’m not sure.

“I don’t know if he was provoked, but that’s definitely not the way we want to play. The optics weren’t great.”

Planetrugby.com

I get that some see Eben’s actions as serious, but “forever tarnished” seems like the reactions of drama Queens.

Rugby is an aggressive, physical sport and players get involved in heated moments all the time.

Comparing him to Botha, Geldenhuys, or Dalton is fine, but those players are still remembered as greats despite their incidents.

Eben still has his career ahead of him and people tend to move on quickly when someone continues to perform well for the team.

"Forever tarnished”? That’s more opinion than fact.

Blow me, that is 12 matches at the most critical of sharks season.

So he played 2 games and was really pap.

Then just were using sparingly on your and can only play 40 min these days as a 34 year old.

It means he will only be back in April by which time it is knock out rugby and on current form the sharks will definitely not make any knock outs.

I do hope they punish him in the wallet. They paid so much money to get him on a five year contract so that he can see out his career at the sharks only to tank.

Etzebeth is not good news for any club team. So glad he is not at the Stormers anymore

Vaccine and his Gimp Hysteria are embarrassed. For the rest of us this is almost a desirable outcome. Obviously the Committee got it wrong, it was not an intentional eye gouge. But they also didn’t see Eben as a thug like the so called Bok fan Hysteria….because his record allowed them to reduce the sentence.

Eben gets a rest and two spiteful fools are humiliated…good stuff.

Tarnished has a permanence to it. That the head butt by Bakkies or the eye contact by Eben somehow defines them.

This is not the case, not even close

Bakkies was definitely dirtier than Eben but both were/are hard, uncompromising and confrontational players - that’s what defines them

"Blow me, that is 12 matches at the most critical of sharks season. "

The only thing critical at the Sharks is the timeframe within which they can get rid of Plumtree.

My word they have been horrendous. I've literally turned offf mid game to go and do gardening, and a frigging hate gardening hahaha

At least the Lions, Bulls and Stormers appear to have an idea of how they want to play and are able to execute.

I think the 12 week break will do Ebenezer good.

At this point most of the Sharks players are probably looking for eyes to put their thumbs into.

Bwhahaha!

I get that some see Eben’s actions as serious, but “forever tarnished” seems like the reactions of drama Queens.

Yep, forever tarnished my ass .... this was a split second occurance, that has been dramatised significantly, however it was serious and Eben needed to be held responsible.

Comparing him to Botha, Geldenhuys, or Dalton is fine, but those players are still remembered as greats despite their incidents.

They certainly are

"Forever tarnished”? That’s more opinion than fact.

Definitely

I originally said that Eben should face a sanction of 12 - 18 weeks, and he got 18 weeks reduced to 12 weeks, so my original assessment was pretty much spot on.

Given all those other examples of eye gouges and the sanctions they got, I think it was a reasonable outcome for Eben, because it could so easily have been much worse.

At this point most of the Sharks players are probably looking for eyes to put their thumbs into.

Lmfao

Haha Plum, yes. It was abysmal watching the Saarks. Not sure if it is only Plum but you would think he would be better given he went onto coach Wellington Hurricanes with some success and then an assistant coach for new Zealand. However they kicked his ass out. Maybe the writing was on the wall then.

Still think the saarks have to many quota players and obsession to make the team black. You don't have a culture in that team

KC

They have a coach problem - but even more so - they a have a squad of plaers who are uncoachable because the playes believe nobody knows more about the game than they do - so perfomances in matches are just disasters in the making. No game plans are implemented - no efforts make to play prper rugby - the fofrwards win matches the backline loses matches.

The norm seems to be amongst players is "I'm so good - I cannot speak highly enough of myself"

The problem is that the team needs a strong coach that can deal wth the players firmly an fet them to play team rugby and not individual BS.

The Sharks got rid of Am - but there are at least another 4 Ams in that category that should be booted out and replaced..

. .