Exclusive: Full details emerge of Jan-Hendrik Wessels’ ban and Josh Murphy’s role in it
Exclusive: Full details emerge of Jan-Hendrik Wessels' ban and Josh Murphy's role in it
Bulls and Springboks front-rower Jan-Hendrik Wessels was banned despite no conclusive video evidence, it can be confirmed. The disciplinary panel reportedly handed down the punishment on the basis of testimonies by Josh Murphy and the citing commissioner.
It was revealed earlier in the week that the South African forward had been handed a nine-week suspension for grabbing the testicles of Connacht flanker Murphy during their United Rugby Championship clash on October 17.
The Bulls were not given the full judgement immediately, but Planet Rugby have gained exclusive access and can reveal the full findings, which state that no further camera angles were provided.
Lesser standard of proof required
According to the report, a decision is made “on the balance of probabilities” and that “this is a lesser standard than proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ applied in criminal cases.”
As a result, the panel “must be satisfied, based on the evidence put forward by the Player (Wessels), or on his behalf, that it is more likely than not that the findings of the Citing Commissioner were wrong.”
Ultimately, it was therefore down to Wessels and his representatives to prove that the citing commissioner, Peter Ferguson, was wrong to bring him before the panel.
Ferguson spoke with Murphy after the match before submitting a report to the panel where he, in effect, believed the account of the Connacht flanker.
“The live television feed, while not conclusive in capturing direct contact, clearly shows Wessels’ right elbow grounded and his head turning backwards toward Murphy,” the report read.
“Simultaneously, Wessels’ left arm, partially obscured, can be seen moving in an unnatural arc toward Murphy’s groin area. The movement is not consistent with any legitimate rucking, grasp or binding action.
“Immediately following the contact, Murphy reacts with visible and audible distress. He attempts to push/strike Wessels away and can be heard, several times, on the referee’s microphone exclaiming, ‘He grabbed me right here!’ gesturing unmistakably to his groin.
“His tone is one of shock, distress, and disbelief, yet he remains articulate and composed in his protest.
“He recounted the incident with clarity and consistency. When asked how long the contact lasted, he estimated ‘three to five seconds’, a timeframe that aligns with the footage and his visible reaction.
“He further stated that his testicles were ‘grabbed and twisted,’ a claim made with conviction and without embellishment.
“I was present at the match, positioned approximately 20 metres from the incident. My direct line of sight corroborated the sequence of events as described by Murphy and partially captured on video.
“The reaction from Murphy was immediate and unmistakably one of frustration.”
Video evidence not conclusive proof
Ferguson admitted that the video evidence did not “provide irrefutable visual confirmation of the exact point of contact,” but that “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.”
Wessels and his representative were then brought forward to present their case and accused both Murphy and Ferguson of inconsistencies in the evidence they provided.
They claimed “the incident occurred is shown to be approximately 25 metres from the touchline, whilst the Citing Commissioner’s report states that he was approximately 20 metres from the incident.”
Wessels’ representative also claimed that “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.”
Equally, the Bulls front-rower and his team felt that Murphy was uncertain over the length of the incident – “first stating five seconds, then three to five seconds” – and that there was “the absence of any physical or medical evidence to support the allegation.”
Incidents involving Kyle Sinckler and Adre Smith in 2021 were cited by Wessels’ representative as similar examples of cases that were dismissed due to a lack of “clear, cogent and exact evidence”.
Wessels and Murphy speak
Wessels was invited to submit his version of events and claimed that he was trying to push Murphy away after feeling pressure on his knee.
The report states: “He (Wessels) felt a force from his side, resulting in him lying on his side with his leg trapped under players at the ruck. The Player described using his left arm to push down on his leg to relieve pressure on his knee and free his leg.
“Further to questioning by the Committee, the Player denied that he grabbed C6’s (Murphy) testicles for the purpose of freeing himself and relieving pressure on his knee.
“The Player stated that based on his position, he accepted that it was possible for him to have touched the groin area of C6, but that he did not; he asserted that he attempted to pull his leg free, then pressed down on his knee to relieve the pressure on it.”
Murphy rejected that account with the report stating that the flanker “described feeling the Player grab, squeeze and twist his testicles, noting this was consistent with a deliberate act” and added that it “could only have been a deliberate action and not accidental.”
In conclusion, Wessels’ representative “invited the Committee to reject the citing on the basis that there is not sufficient evidence, the evidence that is available is inconsistent, the Player provided credible evidence which was not subjective and provided a probable version of events.”
The outcome
After receiving all the evidence provided, the disciplinary panel decided that the citing commissioner’s complaint should be upheld and Wessels committed an act of foul play.
“The Player committed an act of foul play in that he grabs and twists the testicles of C6, as alleged by C6 and the Citing Commissioner,” the committee concluded.
“Whilst not conclusive, the video evidence supports and shows movements which are consistent with this finding immediately before, during and after this incident occurs.”
Both players were seen as “credible” witnesses, but Wessels’ oral evidence was “brief” in comparison to Murphy’s, which was deemed “clear and detailed by the Committee.”
They added: “The Player’s actions were not in error, and this was not fleeting contact with the testicles of C6. Given the direct and intentional nature of the Player’s actions, the Committee are satisfied that the foul play meets the threshold for a Red Card.
“In reviewing the evidence of C6, the Committee acknowledged there was a discrepancy with regards to the duration of the incident, but this was not given significant weight and did not alter the Panel’s view of the fundamental aspects of C6’s evidence.
“The Committee also considered that C6 had his own interests to serve in giving an exculpatory explanation for him striking the Player as he was facing a disciplinary hearing for his Red Card also, but notwithstanding this the Committee found his evidence to be credible.”
