Ardie Savea’s role in Eben Etzebeth’s ban as All Blacks star’s statement given ‘weight’
Springboks lock Eben Etzebeth and All Blacks back-row Ardie Savea.
All Blacks superstar Ardie Savea leapt to the defence of Springboks second-row Eben Etzebeth’s character during his hearing for eye-gouging Alex Mann.
The lock was suspended for 12 weeks for intentionally making contact with the eye of the Wales flanker in South Africa’s 73-0 victory last weekend.
Etzebeth will therefore miss the majority of the Sharks’ season and will next be available to play in late March ahead of the United Rugby Championship run-in.
He was initially handed an 18-week ban, with it deemed to be a mid-range offence, but it was mitigated down to 12.
The Springboks second-row was not given full mitigation, however, despite a testimony from Savea, which supported his fellow forward.
‘Appropriate weight’ given
“We also gave appropriate weight to the character testimonial from Ardie Savea,” the disciplinary committee stated, but they did not reveal what was exactly said by the All Blacks back-row.
The judgement took that into account when deciding the length of suspension, but ultimately claimed that it was “not a defence” for what he did on the field last Saturday.
“First, we had regard to the character evidence the Player relied upon, including the absence of any such previous offending,” the panel stated.
“Evidence of good character may make it less likely that someone acted in the way now alleged but cannot be and is not a defence.
“We are all capable of acting rashly and out of character, maybe especially when provoked.”
Etzebeth was banned for two games in 2012 but that did not hold any weight, according to the judgement.
“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,” it read.
Eben Etzebeth fate revealed as Springboks star learns punishment for eye-gouge against Wales
But they were not willing to give the Springboks lock the full discount, which would have reduced it to nine weeks.
Panel’s pointed comment on mitigation
In their findings, the committee made a pointed comment about mitigation, perhaps suggesting previous suspensions have been too lenient.
“We did not give him the (now customary) full 50% discount. The amount of mitigation is not and should not be a default setting. Too often it has the appearance of being,” the disciplinary panel wrote.
“The degree of mitigation is (in accordance with WRR17.19.1) fact-sensitive and the product of an exercise of judgement, not automatic.”
They concluded: “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.
“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 playing record.”
