Wessels’ Appeal Dismissed – The Setting Of A Dangerous Precedent
For the past week, the big controversy in world rugby has been the incident between Vodacom Bulls and Springbok player Jan-Hendrik Wessels and Josh Murphy of Connacht.
During the incident, Murphy accused Wessels of grabbing and manipulating his genitals during a breakdown.
No sanction was issued against Wessels by the match officials during the match due to inconclusive video evidence; however, after the game, proceedings took a turn.
The citing commissioner brought the issue before a URC disciplinary panel. The panel found Wessels guilty of “grabbing, twisting or squeezing the genitals” of his opponent. This was a breach of the law over unsporting conduct/against the spirit of good sportsmanship.
While the entry point for such an offense is 12 weeks, due to Wessels’ prior record of good conduct, the initial ban was set at 9 weeks.
The lack of conclusive video evidence, combined with such a severe sanction, has sparked massive debate and, in some parts of the rugby world, absolute outrage over the transparency, fairness, and review of incidents in the modern game.
Wessels, alongside the Bulls, appealed – requesting a de novo hearing (a fresh hearing from scratch) and sought to challenge the original finding and/or the length of the suspension.
The independent appeal panel was chaired by Roddy MacLeod (Scotland) and two other members, Achille Reali (Italy) and Robert Milligan (Scotland).
The panel ruled there were no exceptional circumstances to permit a full de novo hearing.
In their deliberation, the appeal committee reviewed the grounds put forward by Wessels and the Bulls, heard oral evidence from the player and club, and assessed the earlier panel’s decision.
However, they dismissed the substantive challenge to the finding of an act of foul play – i.e., they confirmed that Wessels had committed the act as determined by the first panel. Again, this was despite the absence of conclusive video evidence.
They did find, however, that the original reduction from the 12-week entry point to nine weeks did not fully take into account an aspect of his conduct. As a result, they reduced the sentence by one week, from nine weeks to eight weeks.
The panel declared the matter closed.
Not only does this do reputational damage to Wessels, but it also means the Springboks lose a front row asset while the Bulls lose a valuable player of high caliber.
For South African fans, the case leaves behind a sour taste and prompts questions for the URC disciplinary processes.
Several commentators have argued that the way the case was handled reflects poorly on the sport.
Article by Riaz Hamed
