Former England and Lions hooker Brian Moore has called on World Rugby to clarify how its disciplinary system works after Eben Etzebeth’s 12-week eye-gouging suspension and warned “there is a widespread feeling that the bigger and better teams get favours that are denied your average player.”
Etzebeth was banned last week after a disciplinary panel found he had “intentionally” made contact with the eye area of Wales flanker Alex Mann during South Africa’s 73-0 demolition of Wales in Cardiff on November 29.
The panel deemed the clash a mid-range offence, starting at 18 weeks, before reducing the suspension by six weeks due to mitigating factors – including the Springbok lock’s previous good record.
The ruling has become one of the most divisive in recent Test seasons, particularly after it emerged that the ban applies only to club games and not any Springboks Tests. Etzebeth will miss most of the Sharks’ campaign but will take up a coaching role during his suspension.
Moore, writing in his Telegraph column, said that despite years of experience navigating disciplinary hearings as a player and as legal counsel, he remains “almost as confused as everybody else as to what level of sanction is applied to what offence” in the modern game.
“There is a widespread feeling that the bigger and better teams get favours that are denied your average player,” Moore wrote.
“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.
“The difference between an in-tournament ban of one game or three can have a very real influence on how your side fares.”
Moore questioned Etzebeth’s defence case, which included a claim that he feared being “rag-dolled” by Mann.
“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 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,” he wrote.
The debate continued elsewhere when former England halfback Ben Youngs and tighthead prop Dan Cole used their For The Love Of Rugby podcast to call for bans involving eye contact to come with no mitigation.
“When you look at it as a whole, I’d say 18 weeks sounds about right,” Youngs said. “You make contact with someone’s eye and they have basically said that it was intentional; it has to be 18 or more. It does.
“You have gouged someone in the eye; 18 weeks sounds about right. That is a hefty ban for something you should never ever do on a rugby field. But to reduce it down to 12, that shouldn’t be reduced because of previous.”
He said that in other foul-play scenarios, such as accidental high tackles, a clean record should fairly reduce a sanction, but not with gouging.
“With something like an eye-gouge, you can’t mess around with a thing like that,” he said. “You have identified it is intentional – well then there is no mitigation in terms of what you have done previously.”
Cole agreed, saying the system should be absolute in cases of intentional contact.
“If it was reckless and got reduced down, fair enough, but because it was deemed intentional, to then reduce it down on previous, not just in this case but in general, as soon as it is deemed intentional it should just stay as the ban,” said Cole.
The Roarhttps://www.theroar.com.au/2025/12/09/bigger-teams-get-favours-ex-test-stars-call-for-change-after-controversial-eye-gouge-ban/‘Bigger teams get favours’: Ex-Test stars call for change after controversial eye-gouge ban
Post a Comment