Jan-Hendrik Wessels saga heading to Irish court?

UPDATE: The controversial ban of Springbok utility forward Jan-Hendrik Wessels may face an unprecedented legal challenge.

The Bulls confirmed on Sunday that they are ‘considering’ the option of challenging his ban, reduced from nine to eight weeks, in court.

An appeal hearing last Wednesday, October 29, dismissed Wessels’ request for a de novo hearing (starting afresh, completely disregarding the previous proceedings, evidence, and decision).

The front row forward, Wessels, was originally banned for nine weeks for an act of foul play, under Law 9.27, in the Bulls’ United Rugby Championship win (28-27) over Connacht in Galway on October 17.

Law 9.27 states: A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship. This includes grabbing, twisting or squeezing the genitals.

Wessels and the Bulls appealed the original decision and ban.

The appeal committee, led by Roddy MacLeod (Scotland) as Chairman, alongside Achille Reali (Italy) and Robert Milligan (Scotland), convened to determine the appeal, stating that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the de novo request.

“The basis of such an appeal requires an appellant to demonstrate that the first instance disciplinary panel erred in its findings,” the URC statement, issued last Wednesday, said.

It added: “After reviewing the grounds of appeal and hearing from the player and his team [Bulls franchise] the appeal committee dismissed the substantive grounds of appeal, but reduced the ban by one week.”

However, the Bulls have now indicated they may take the unprecedented step of going the legal route.

They may challenge it in an Irish court.

“Yes, the Bulls are currently considering their options,” a Bulls spokesman told @rugby365com on Sunday.

“A decision will be made between the Bulls, the South African Rugby Union, and MyPlayers [the players’ trade union],” the Bulls official added.

While a court battle could be a lengthy and complex process, the Bulls are clearly frustrated with the hardliner stance of the URC’s disciplinary structures.

In the absence of any obvious and unmistakable video evidence, both the original hearing and the appeal committee based their findings on testimony from the two players and the opinion of the match Citing Commissioner.

To make matters worse, the appeal panel gave substantial weight the testimony and the Citing Commissioner, which contained clear discrepancies.

They would also not consider ‘new medical evidence’ put forward by the Bulls, which could have cast serious doubt on Murphy’s claim of a five second (later adjusted to three to five seconds) ‘grab and twist of the genitals’ by Wessels.

@rugby365com