URC's disciplinary process questioned as Wessels controversially banned despite lack of visual evidence

Imagine a team claiming to have scored a try and the referee referring it to the television match official (TMO), saying “on-field decision is no try”. Imagine that TMO coming back and saying that the try must be awarded on “the balance of probabilities” despite having no visual evidence of a touchdown because of how much the scoring team claimed it to be a try. It would be absurd.

Yet, that scenario is similar to the process that led to a nine-week ban for Bulls hooker Jan-Hendrik Wessels. The Bulls front ranker was found guilty of grabbing and twisting Connacht's Josh Murphy’s genitals in the 18th minute of their United Rugby Championship (URC) match last Friday.

There is no video evidence of the alleged assault, Wessels denies he did it, Murphy says it happened and the Citing Commissioner, Peter Ferguson from Ireland, admits he didn’t actually see the alleged act — live or subsequently on video.

Ferguson also revealed he was sitting 20 metres away when the incident occurred.  

The stakes are obviously different to the try-scoring analogy, but you wouldn’t award a try without visual evidence, yet it seems the URC disciplinary panel was happy to award a ban for a serious, career-shaping offence, without visual evidence.

“While the video footage does not provide irrefutable visual confirmation of the exact point of contact, the totality of evidence, Murphy’s immediate reaction, his consistent and credible testimony, the unnatural movement of Wessels’ arm, and the corroborating live observation, leads to a compelling conclusion,” the Citing Commissioner’s report stated.

“The movement of Wessels’ left arm, away from his body and toward Murphy’s groin, is not only unnatural but also unnecessary in the context of ruck engagement.

“His backward glance further suggests awareness. On the balance of probabilities, and in light of the evidence presented, it is my firm belief that Vodacom Bulls No 2 Jan-Hendrik Wessels committed a serious act of foul play by grabbing and, as alleged, twisting the testicles of Connacht No 6 Josh Murphy.

“I formally submit that Vodacom Bulls No.2 Jan-Hendrik Wessels be cited for a breach of Law 9.27.”

Under the rules of the hearing, which differ from a civil court, Wessels had to disprove the Citing Commissioner’s version of events, even though he was charged based on Murphy’s accusations and nothing else.

“In a case arising out of a player being cited, the burden is on that player (if they so wish) to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a committee that the Citing Commissioner’s complaint was wrong because the player did not commit the act(s) of foul play specified in the complaint and/or those act(s) did not warrant a red card,” the notes of the disciplinary decision explain.

“In accordance with the rules, factual determinations made by disciplinary committees are on the balance of probabilities.”

Opaque

The process is at best opaque. Murphy “reacted” to something that Wessels says he didn’t do, by punching Wessels in the head. For that, the Connacht man was red-carded by referee Mike Adamson during the match.

But the disciplinary panel rescinded Murphy’s red card. In one fell swoop they have condoned retaliatory action to an incident that wasn’t seen, only alleged.

Where does this end? Do players punch another player, and then claim they were victims of prior skullduggery and were therefore justified in their retaliation?

Let’s for a moment take Murphy’s experience as true and that he did have his genitals twisted and pulled.

The Citing Commissioner claims that Wessels’ arm moves in an “unnatural” way towards Murphy’s groin. Having watched it many times, it hardly appears unnatural.

Could Wessels have done what he’s alleged to have done? Possibly. But did he do it? Well, the answer is clearly in dispute and the evidence to prove it is weak, to non-existent. You’d think that the evidence would have to be more compelling than that to tarnish a man’s reputation.

Appeal

Naturally the Bulls have appealed against the sanction on principle. Wessels’ reputation is under the microscope from a man who had a poor disciplinary record.

Murphy received a four-match ban last year for an ugly shoulder charge on Ulster’s James McCormick. In 2021 Murphy was banned for two games for “unintentional contact with the eye” in a match against Glasgow. He does not have a clean record. Conversely Wessels has not been suspended at any time in his career.

The appeal should be heard this week — possibly on Thursday. Wessels linked up with the Springboks in London despite his ban.

That is a clear indication that the Boks, and the Bulls, are confident that the appeal will be successful.

The Bulls are likely to focus on the Citing Commissioner’s lack of accuracy and use case law to show that previous decisions of this nature were overturned on appeal due to lack of evidence.

“The Player’s (Wessels) representative questioned the accuracy of the Citing Commissioner’s report, noting the ruck at which the incident occurred is shown to be approximately 25 metres from the touchline, whilst the Citing Commissioner’s report states that he was approximately 20m from the incident,” the panel’s report notes.

“In addition, the Player’s representative claimed the match officials were in a superior position compared to the Citing Commissioner, and they were not able to identify the offence, including with the benefit of technology.”

It appears the appeal will come to the provision of more compelling evidence than was shown in the initial hearing. DM