2025 EOYT Matches (Non-ANZ)

[cyclopath]

If Etzebeth does not get a significant ban, WR (World Rugby) needs a serious overhaul. Footage is pretty awful.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Entry point is 12 weeks & I don't see what mitigation there could possibly be so it has to be at least 12 weeks. But it's WR (World Rugby) so he'll probably get six.

 

[Wilson]

It's as clear cut a case as I can ever remember seeing - it happened on camera, he could see what he was doing, and he appears to deliberately move his thumb into the players eye and applies force. The only thing protecting him is that it wasn't a high degree of force applied and he doesn't seem to do damage.

It should probably start at the mid-range entry of 18 weeks, and there is an argument for higher based on the criteria. They'll invariably find some amount of mitigation, but hopefully they handle the whole thing better than they did the Berthoumieu biting incident from the Women's World Cup.

 

[cyclopath]

Entry point is 12 weeks & I don't see what mitigation there could possibly be so it has to be at least 12 weeks. But it's WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) so he'll probably get six.

12 weeks mitigated to 6 after he does a "Don't eye-gouge people" course and says sorry.

 

[Strewthcobber]

My guess is mid-range intentional contact with the eyes (18 weeks)

Mitigated down by 50% because he hasn't blinded someone before, says sorry and wears a nice suit.

9 week suspension. Returns a few weeks before URC finals

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Etzebeth is now likely to face a lengthy ban, with the entry point for deliberate eye contact at 12 weeks and the maximum ban range extending all the way to four years.

 

[Pokinacha]

Considering the damage even a cursory poke in the eye can do (Ben Robinson), and this action was not in the process of general play or a tackle gone wrong, there is no mitigation that should bring any sanction down from a permanent ban from rugby.
Eye gouging is a stain on our sport that has been a constant of the Springboks and seemingly just below the surface and unable to be shed. This could be cultural or just grubby players permeating through the team.
LTGEN Morrison when he was Chief of Army said “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept” and Unless WR (World Rugby) come down hard on both the Springboks and Etzebeth, gouging will continue to be a blight on our game

 

[Strewthcobber]

Considering the damage even a cursory poke in the eye can do (Ben Robinson), and this action was not in the process of general play or a tackle gone wrong, there is no mitigation that should bring any sanction down from a permanent ban from rugby.

This is just fantasy land stuff.

WR (World Rugby) will follow the same disciplary process that every act of foul play attracts, which includes off-field mitigation.

You can read what they will do in regulation 17

 

[Wilson]

Considering the damage even a cursory poke in the eye can do (Ben Robinson), and this action was not in the process of general play or a tackle gone wrong, there is no mitigation that should bring any sanction down from a permanent ban from rugby.
Eye gouging is a stain on our sport that has been a constant of the Springboks and seemingly just below the surface and unable to be shed. This could be cultural or just grubby players permeating through the team.
LTGEN Morrison when he was Chief of Army said “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept” and Unless WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) come down hard on both the Springboks and Etzebeth, gouging will continue to be a blight on our game

Look it's a heinous act and he deserves a lengthy ban, but there is a very clear gap between this and the very top end of the sanctions.

The regulations list a series of criteria at with which to gauge the entry point:

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.

With the act not effecting the match, not injuring the player, an apparent apology shortly after the game and any potential provocation they can claim there is simply no way it will be anything close to a lifetime ban. I'd even be surprised if they started at the top end entry point.

If world rugby were to hand down something as severe as a lifetime ban the most likely outcome would be it being overturned on appeal to the point that he would end up getting off lightly.