Why Eben Etzebeth did not get the full 50 percent 'discount'
UPDATE: Disciplinary hearings continue to spawn nonsensical vagaries, even with their commonplace ‘full written’ explanations.
The Eben Etzebeth hearing was no exception.
The veteran South Africa lock, Etzebeth, was banned for 12 matches after being found guilty of ‘intentionally’ inserting a digit of his thumb into an opponent’s eye, after being sent off in the Springboks’ record 73-0 whitewash of Wales in Cardiff last weekend.
The two-time World Cup winner made contact with the left eye of Alex Mann in the final minute of the season-ending international.
A disciplinary panel determined that contact with the eye was intentional and a “mid-range” entry point of 18 games was appropriate as a sanction.
Mitigating factors, including the player’s previous record, resulted in the suspension being reduced to 12 weeks.
However, this is where the fun starts.
The 34-year-old did not get the customary full 50 percent discount.
The mitigating factors usually include such off-the-wall reasons as ‘conduct before and at hearing’ (whatever that means – sitting still, keeping quiet, not crossing his legs?), or wearing a nice tie and helping an elderly person to cross the street.
The disciplinary panel, chaired by Christopher Quinlan, said in its full written decision: “He [Etzebeth] behaved as one would expect a professional athlete to do.”
The committee also explained why it arrived at the ‘mid-range’ finding of 18 weeks and why Etzebeth was not worthy of the customary 50 percent discount for such good behaviour and disciplinary record.
(Continue below …)
Mid-range explanation
We think it [is] helpful to explain why we have arrived at mid-range. This was intentional contact with the eye.
That has a separate sanctioning band in Appendix One with [a] low end at 12 matches/weeks, mid-range 18 weeks and top end at 24+ matches/weeks.
We have not ‘double-counted’ the intentional element of the offending since those starting points reflect that element. But in our judgment, this merited mid-range entry point for these reasons:
* It involved the pressing of the thumb directly on and into the eye for about one second, as opposed to a transient brushing across the eye contact.
* It was retaliatory, but it was far out of proportion to the pulling of his shirt and anything which had gone before.
* It was part of a sustained engagement with W7 (Mann) during which the Player’s hand/s repeatedly went into his face
Reason for the number of weeks/matches discounted
We did not withhold any discount based on his previous two-match ban. It was some years ago and more than balanced out by the other positive aspect, so his character
However, we did not give him the (now customary) full 50 percent discount. The amount of mitigation is not and should not be a default setting. Too often, it has the appearance of being. The degree of mitigation is (in accordance with WRR17.19.1) fact-sensitive and the product of an exercise of judgement, not automatic.
WRR17.19.1(a) states: “(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of the commission of foul play by the offending player”
In this case, the Player insisted that the foul play was not intentional. His acknowledgement of foul play was partial.
The Committee found against him on that, and it is a highly material fact.
The issue of recklessness/intentional was a core factual issue which went to the heart of the foul play. The denial of full culpability (as we found it was) is also (arguably) relevant to WRR17.19.1(e).
The approach of the player is to be contrasted with the player who accepts full factual responsibility, who must, on any sensible and principled view of the regulations, be entitled to a greater discount.
He was not, therefore, entitled to the (conventional) full discount. The extent of mitigation was assessed at one-third, reflecting the mitigation, principally his partial admission and character, including [his] playing record.
@rugby365com
