How long a ban is Eben facing

For his act of stupidity? I’ve heard potentially 2 years which is career ending?

Some clip I saw said 24 weeks.

i can't see it being less than 3 months though.

Bloody idiot. How has he been a Bok all this time but still not mustered up the self-control to stop himself from doing things like that?

Would be a poor way to end a sterling career.

Dave I did apost based in what Brendan Nel said.

If Eben's fingers didn't touched the eye itself the punishment is 4 to 12 weeks.

If the fingers touched the eye it could be anything up to 3 years.

Then there could be mitigating factors. A guy posted on You Tube that Mann slapped Eben in the face and grabbed hos collar.

We have to hope Eben's finger dint touch Manns eye and that there are in fact mitigating circumstances. Also Eben is known as a hard player but not a dirty player.

PERSONALLY I AM HOPING FOR NOT MORE THAN 12 WEEKS. HOWEVER THE DISCIPLINARY COMMMITTEE ARE ANTI BOK AND COULD TRY AND END EBEN'S CAREER.

If they do the latter there will be a court battle. The Committee will also be under very close scrutiny.

Looked like eye contact to me - the player was holding his jersey but that is no justification for eye gouging

Fucking stupid of him

I think he is in deep shit

Don't mind as long Eben is fit and raring to go for the 2027 RWC.

Yes there will definitely be a ban. How long it will be we shall see.

It was a career-first red card for Etzebeth, or at least from what we can determine, it’s absolutely his first at international level, which is a factor for starters. The one previous ban has been for an attempted headbutt against Australia, which resulted in a two-week ban, and that was all the way back in 2012.

How the panel determine the seriousness

Then it’s worth considering World Rugby’s sanction guidelines for eye gouging. It is as follows: Low-end: 4 weeks, Mid-range: 8 weeks, Top-end: 12+ weeks, Max: 52 weeks.

World Rugby regulation 17.18.1 reads: “Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall undertake an assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct that constitutes the offending and categorise that conduct as being at the lower end, mid-range or top end of the scale of seriousness in order to identify the appropriate entry point for consideration of particular act(s) of Foul Play where such act(s) are expressly covered in Appendix 1.

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.”

While Etzebeth has repeatedly been involved in scuffles like the one that occurred with Mann, he has never lashed out in that manner. This suggests that (d & e) could be factored in, as he could have been provoked by the Welshman, with the actions of the flanker not picked up by the broadcast shown or by the TMO.

Were his actions intentional (a)? He will surely argue that they weren’t, and captain Siya Kolisi immediately suggested as much in his post-match interview. Convincing an independent panel of that will be crucial for Etzebeth.

Was it reckless? Absolutely. He doesn’t have a case there. Was Mann injured (g) as a result? He finished the match but may well have sustained an injury; the medical team will submit a report. Was the flanker vulnerable (i)? No.

How long Etzebeth could be banned for

Make no mistake about it, Etzebeth is getting a ban, but the length of the suspension will weigh heavily on the above, but also where on the scale the panel deems his actions to rank

A mid-range (8 weeks) would likely get chopped down to four weeks after the mitigation factors are weighted, while the same is true for a top-end (12+ weeks), reduced to six.

Springboks winger Makazole Mapimpi has twice been banned recently for eye-gouging and received three and four-week suspensions, respectively. On both occasions, Mapimpi’s actions were deemed to reach the low-entry points.

Kolisi added in his interview that Etzebeth apologised to Mann after the match, a frosty moment caught on the broadcast too.

World Rugby Regulations for Mitigation reads:

“17.19.1 Having identified the applicable entry point for consideration of a particular incident, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall identify any relevant off-field mitigating factors and determine if there are grounds for reducing the period of suspension and subject to Regulations 17.19.2 and 17.19.3 the extent, if at all, by which the period of suspension should be reduced. Mitigating factors include the following:

(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of the commission of foul play by the offending Player;

(b) the Player’s disciplinary record;

(c) the youth and/or inexperience of the Player;

(d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing

(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his/her conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and

(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate

Etzebeth is likely to get a full migration in his sanction, meaning that unless the disciplinary panel deems the entry point for his ban to be a top-end and adds additional weeks on the guideline 12, at most a six-match ban is heading his way.

If that is the outcome, the Springboks lock will miss the Sharks’ four December fixtures against Toulouse, Saracens, Bulls, and Lions, as well as their opening games of the new year against the Lions and Sale Sharks.

planetrugby.com

I have to say thankyou to Mampara Power for bringing to the board this very good article. You cant be wrong all the time!

It seems unlikely that Eben will receive a career ending ban. I knew his disciplinary record was good but not this good.

Enjoy the rest Eben and come back better than ever. The Guppies need some steel in their pack!

Eben is wasted on that retard Plumtree at the Sharks.

I'd be happy with him not turning out at all for them this season and taking a rest instead.

Imagine, a side full of Boks that struggles to beat a terrible Welsh club side!?

Plum

You blame the caaoch f ecverything that is wrong in the case do the Sharks. Too many playes became uncoachable and relatively useless based on their reputation as Springboks and that cause major roblems in the team.

The Sharks has ecelelnt forards - but their backlin players are made up of too many reputaaton players and even when Etserhuizena nd Hooker si available the abckline fails and the Sgharks lose matche theys hould have won. In a way the same applies to the Bulls, Take the match between the Lions and the Bulls yesteday, The Lions backline thrashed th Bulls using their backline to detroy the Bulls,

Ackerman is a good coach - but iro backline development he inherited three reputation players that is basically useless fom White and even Pollard was below standard, while both Willie and Serfontein is piss-poor, It will take Ackerman more than a year to rebuild the squad he inheroted from White into a team that plays according to a game plan and not a 10 man game alone and are trained to implement workng game plans. It will take for some real rebuilding to get the team to play 15 man rugby and use strategies to win matches,

The fact sis that the Stormers lost their two star performers - Sacha and Willemse - but theys till won all their URC matches thus far,- wit both Sacha and Willemse only playin in one match out of the 6 played. Why would that be the case? They hav two things missing in both the Sharks and Bulls - namely a 15 man game paln and absolute dedication fo their players to develop a team culture,

As an eample they found a new flyhalf taht nobody knew about and he is now to my mind the hird best SA flyhalf and top the log on flyhalf perdoeabces in the URC, So they have a repalcement flyhalf of top quality - which both he Bulls and Sharks do not have, In the main the Stormers win amtches playing 15 man rugby - both the Bulls and Sharks play 10 man rugby - get themesasage?

A hell of a job for Ackerman as well as for the successor of Plumtree at the Sharks,

if Jan Henrik got 12 weeks for imaginary ball grabbing. What will Eben get?

He did it more than once and was complex at fault, he seem to hold onto the guy and just didn’t stop. What is worse is Bongi behaviour, not only taunting the lad but then refused to shake his hand at the end. This is absolutely disgusting behaviour. We also saw Libbok doing something similar. This is not what bok rugby is about. If I was Rassie I will show them the door

Scott Barrett's taking a non-rugby sabbatical next year .... Etzebeth should do the same, or retire.