TALKING POINT: We are all losers in the way the Wessels case has been handled

The travesty surrounding the nine-week ban for Springbok utility forward Jan-Hendrik Wessels has played itself out this past week and there is only one thing to take from it - we’re all losers in the process.

Wessels, of course, is the biggest loser here, and if the appeal is upheld, will lose more than R1-million in revenue over the next nine weeks, after being accused of an act that he denies, and of which there is no substantive evidence that it actually happened.

Connacht player Josh Murphy accused Wessels of grabbing him between the legs and “twisting” in an incident he said lasted 3-5 seconds. Now while this version of events is unlikely, and the time mentioned doesn’t correspond with the video footage available, it was accepted by a three-person panel that found Wessels guilty.

They rejected Wessels version that he was trapped at the bottom of the ruck, couldn’t see Murphy and pushed his arm out to try and free his leg. His defence was, at the very least, understandable given the dynamic environment that is a ruck on a rugby field.

Was there contact? Perhaps. Was it intentional? Who knows? The point is that disciplinary hearings need to focus on facts, and their finding “on the balance of probabilities” is bizarre and gobsmacking to say the least.

PRECEDENT SET

There are several other incidents where players have been exonerated for the lack of video evidence that is out there. Kyle Sinckler was accused of biting Franco Mostert during the British and Irish Lions tour of 2021, Bongi Mbonambi was accused by Tom Curry of a racial slur during the World Cup semifinal in 2023. Both incidents were dismissed for lack of evidence after the fact.

But here a URC disciplinary panel has found that they feel something must have happened. This despite the fact that a referee, two assistant referees and a television match official (who recently officiated the Women’s World Cup final) could not find conclusive evidence of the accusation.

The precedent that has been set is scary in itself. Players can be convicted on an accusation, without evidence. The can of worms that has been opened is something rugby may well regret.

What they did find was clear evidence of a double punch to the back of the head of Wessels, in reaction by Murphy and red carded him as a result.

But the disciplinary committee has not only found that Wessels has committed an act that there is no evidence for, but they have also gone against World Rugby’s own recommendations for the punch - which is a straight red card - and rescinded it so that Murphy could play again.

RAISES A LOT OF QUESTIONS

Why the same disciplinary committee sat for both incidents raises a lot of questions, especially in terms of bias and fairness? Why they allowed the citing commissioner to give a report that was clearly biased and devoid of facts is also strange?

The Irish citing commissioner spoke to the Irish player afterwards and believed him, claimed he was 20 metres from the incident and saw it clearly. Strangely the closest stand to the incident was closed for the public, so the commissioner had to be on the other side of the field, some 50 metres away.

And his version was accepted above the match officials. Did he speak to Wessels afterwards as well? We don’t know but it is unlikely. So he formed his opinion on a single version of someone he knew well.

The fact the disciplinary committee states in its findings that it was therefore down to Wessels and his representatives to prove that the citing commissioner wrong, and the burden of proof was on him makes it sound as if he was guilty until proven innocent.

The same burden will apply in the appeal as well. In the hearing the committee said they saw both players as “credible witnesses” but Wessels’ oral evidence was “brief” in comparison to Murphy’s, which was deemed “clear and detailed by the Committee.”

The fact that Murphy had his own reasons to want to be believed, as he has been red-carded before and faced a significant ban was taken into account by the committee, but not deemed a significant factor.

SO MANY LOSERS ACROSS THE BOARD

Wessels is the biggest loser here, but so is the disciplinary process, which has been shown up to be a farce with the way they have handled the entire matter. The fact there is no transcript of the hearing, that the written judgement took so long to get to the Bulls and that it gave the impression that something untoward was going on behind the scenes is a very bad look.

The URC are also losers here, as they have been lambasted by rugby fans wanting justice - but they have nothing to do with the process. It is an independent process handled outside their jurisdiction - for the precise reason that they can’t be involved. But they have taken a lot of flack as a result.

SA Rugby and the Bulls are victims as they lose a key player ahead of key games as well. Fans are victims as well as they lose confidence in what should be an open process, and feel there is a vendetta against South African players.

If there is one lesson to be learnt out of all this it is that franchises and the Boks need to be on a war footing. This will not be the last disciplinary travesty to take place and they need to be prepared.

While I don’t know this to be the case, perhaps the Bulls were a bit complacent at what they were going to face, but if it wasn’t clear then, it is clear now.

WAR FOOTING NEEDED

And all SA teams will have to be ready to defend every charge as if it was the worst. There may not be an anti-SA bias, but that doesn’t excuse the legal teams for not being on a footing as if there was.

In every sport when one team dominates, the rest of the league/competitors can’t wait for them to lose.

It wasn’t surprising to see Stephen Jones in the Sunday Times in London on Sunday acknowledge the Boks are in good form, but in the same breath acknowledge he wants the Boks to lose.

“Will they maintain the old philosophy, with which they won the past two World Cups — a massive pack and a massive replacement pack (the “bomb squad”) but with genuine world-class talent behind the scrum. It is decades since they were only a forward machine. Now they are just a machine. I do know how much we’d love to turn them off,” he wrote this past weekend.

Jones is not alone, there are many wanting the Boks to fail. I do not believe there is a conspiracy against the national side, but the success creates envy and jealousy and it is a short road to something more.

The best thing SA Rugby can do between now and 2027 is to be prepared for anything. And make sure there aren’t more victims in the process.