Law discussion: Eben Etzebeth’s ban for an eye gouge unlikely to be nearly as harsh as you think
Springboks lock Eben Etzebeth.
Eben Etzebeth will almost surely be banned following his red card against Wales, but it’s unlikely to be as hefty a decision as most predict.
South Africa thrashed Wales by a record 73-0 margin on Saturday, handing Steve Tandy’s charges their biggest-ever home defeat.
Rassie Erasmus’ men ran in 11 tries in total, the last of which Etzebeth scored himself with the previous 10 tries scored by Ethan Hooker, Jasper Wiese, Morne van den Berg, Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu (2), Wilco Louw, Canan Moodie, Andre Esterhuizen, and Ruan Nortje.
However, the victory was spoiled by Etzebeth’s actions with a handful of minutes left on the clock.
Etzebeth’s red card
The incident unfolded when Ben Carter and Taine Plumtree attempted to hold Feinberg-Mngomezulu up after the Springboks fly-half carried the ball into the Welsh defence.
Etzebeth realised the threat and thundered into the maul and ended up in the ensuing ruck where Alex Mann was on the ground. The two end up grappling with one another as the TV broadcast then shifts to follow the ball, and the pair are out of shot.
However, referee Luc Ramos is alerted to the scuffle that follows the ruck with Etzebeth and Mann exchanging handbags with a host of players involved. The official attempts to break things up, but it boils over with the duo grappling with one another.
Etzebeth gestures towards his face while Mann claims to have been eye gouged. Ramos gives them a talking to, warning of a yellow card, but a replay shows the Bok lock clearly eye gouging the Welshman.
TMO Eric Gauzins alerts the referee that a review must be conducted. Ramos states, “It’s a clear finger to the eyes. So for me it’s a clear penalty and red card… thumb to eyes.” He duly issues the red card and while Etzebeth departs the pitch, he is seen arguing with assistant referee Pierre Brousset.
Completely unnecessary.
Brain-less from Eben Etzebeth. A long ban loading.#WALvRSA pic.twitter.com/VWFwTt9tAD
— Jared Wright (@jaredwright17) November 29, 2025
Now, many would be expecting a hefty, hefty ban to follow, but that expectation might not be met.
It was a career-first red card for Etzebeth, or at least from what we can determine, it’s absolutely his first at international level, which is a factor for starters. The one previous ban has been for an attempted headbutt against Australia, which resulted in a two-week ban, and that was all the way back in 2012.
How the panel determine the seriousness
Then it’s worth considering World Rugby’s sanction guidelines for eye gouging. It is as follows: Low-end: 4 weeks, Mid-range: 8 weeks, Top-end: 12+ weeks, Max: 52 weeks.
World Rugby regulation 17.18.1 reads: “Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall undertake an assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct that constitutes the offending and categorise that conduct as being at the lower end, mid-range or top end of the scale of seriousness in order to identify the appropriate entry point for consideration of particular act(s) of Foul Play where such act(s) are expressly covered in Appendix 1.
“The assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct shall be determined by reference to the following features:
(a) whether the offending was intentional;
(b) whether the offending was reckless, that is the Player knew (or should have known) there was a risk of committing an act(s) of Foul Play;
(c) the nature of the actions, the manner in which the offence was committed including part of body used (for example, fist, elbow, knee or boot);
(d) the existence of provocation;
(e) whether the Player acted in retaliation and the timing of such;
(f) whether the Player acted in self-defence (that is whether the Player used a reasonable degree of force in defending himself);
(g) the effect of the Player’s actions on the victim (for example, extent of injury, removal of victim Player from the game);
(h) the effect of the Player’s actions on the Match;
(i) the vulnerability of the victim Player including part of victim’s body involved/affected, position of the victim Player, ability to defend himself;
(j) the level of participation in the offending and level of premeditation;
(k) whether the conduct of the offending Player was completed or amounted to an attempt; and
(l) any other feature of the Player’s conduct in relation to or connected with the offending.”
While Etzebeth has repeatedly been involved in scuffles like the one that occurred with Mann, he has never lashed out in that manner. This suggests that (d & e) could be factored in, as he could have been provoked by the Welshman, with the actions of the flanker not picked up by the broadcast shown or by the TMO.
Were his actions intentional (a)? He will surely argue that they weren’t, and captain Siya Kolisi immediately suggested as much in his post-match interview. Convincing an independent panel of that will be crucial for Etzebeth.
Was it reckless? Absolutely. He doesn’t have a case there. Was Mann injured (g) as a result? He finished the match but may well have sustained an injury; the medical team will submit a report. Was the flanker vulnerable (i)? No.
Rassie Erasmus’ frank assessment of Eben Etzebeth’s red card
How long Etzebeth could be banned for
Make no mistake about it, Etzebeth is getting a ban, but the length of the suspension will weigh heavily on the above, but also where on the scale the panel deems his actions to rank.
A mid-range (8 weeks) would likely get chopped down to four weeks after the mitigation factors are weighted, while the same is true for a top-end (12+ weeks), reduced to six.
Springboks winger Makazole Mapimpi has twice been banned recently for eye-gouging and received three and four-week suspensions, respectively. On both occasions, Mapimpi’s actions were deemed to reach the low-entry points.
Kolisi added in his interview that Etzebeth apologised to Mann after the match, a frosty moment caught on the broadcast too.
World Rugby Regulations for Mitigation reads:
“17.19.1 Having identified the applicable entry point for consideration of a particular incident, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall identify any relevant off-field mitigating factors and determine if there are grounds for reducing the period of suspension and subject to Regulations 17.19.2 and 17.19.3 the extent, if at all, by which the period of suspension should be reduced. Mitigating factors include the following:
(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of the commission of foul play by the offending Player;
(b) the Player’s disciplinary record;
(c) the youth and/or inexperience of the Player;
(d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing
(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his/her conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and
(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.”
Etzebeth is likely to get a full migration in his sanction, meaning that unless the disciplinary panel deems the entry point for his ban to be a top-end and adds additional weeks on the guideline 12, at most a six-match ban is heading his way.
If that is the outcome, the Springboks lock will miss the Sharks’ four December fixtures against Toulouse, Saracens, Bulls, and Lions, as well as their opening games of the new year against the Lions and Sale Sharks.
