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 to 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 that 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 he 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.