Law discussion: Why Eben Etzebeth was handed a much harsher ban for eye-gouging than Oscar Jegou

Oscar Jegou has been handed a ban for an eye-gouge on Scotland hooker Ewan Ashman but many believe that the France flanker has got off lightly.

Les Bleus’ loose forward will miss the next four games after being found to have made reckless contact with the eye(s) of Ashman during the 50-40 defeat last weekend.

It is the latest high-profile case of gouging after Eben Etzebeth was suspended following the Springboks’ victory over Wales last November.

There is, however, an eight-week differential between the respective punishments, with Etzebeth missing out on 12 Sharks matches.

That has led to a furious reaction online, including from Boks legend Bryan Habana, who fumed: “The inconsistency is just farcical!!!”

The World Rugby guidelines for gouging offences

So why is there such a disparity between the length of the bans?

On a purely factual basis, it boils down to two things; that Jegou’s was deemed reckless rather than intentional and that it came in at a low-end entry point instead of mid-range.

There are three sections a case of alleged gouging can fall under. It is either ‘intentional contact with the eye(s)’, ‘reckless contact with the eye(s),’ or ‘contact with the eye area’.

The latter is obviously the least severe with a low-end entry point of four weeks and a maximum of 12 months. Meanwhile, the other two carry a maximum ban of four years but, crucially, their entry points differ.

Etzebeth’s gouge on Alex Mann, where his thumb went into the eye of the Wales flanker, was deemed to be ‘intentional’ while Jegou’s was ‘reckless’, according to the disciplinary panel.

As a result, there is quite a significant differential in the entry points with the low-end for ‘intentional’ being 12 weeks, but it is six weeks for ‘reckless’.

It then goes up by six weeks each as the severity increases, so 12 for mid-range and 18+ for top-end with ‘reckless contact to the eye(s)’.

Springboks legend slams ‘farcical inconsistency’ over Eben Etzebeth and France star’s eye-gouge bans as Jegou’s sanction dubbed an ’embarrassment’

With Jegou therefore being deemed the lesser sanction and Etzebeth the higher, the length of the ban was always going to differ, but that disparity grew when the Boks lock was considered to be mid-range.

The Frenchman, in contrast, was low-end, which meant their entry points were 18 weeks and six weeks, respectively.

Mitigation

When that is decided by the panel, mitigation is then applied, but neither managed to get the full 50 per cent, which would have reduced it to three and nine weeks, respectively.

Both had reductions due to their good conduct and disciplinary record, but the Springbok did not get the whole amount due to his insistence that it was not intentional, with the judgment stating that Etzebeth’s “acknowledgement of foul play was partial” and, as a result, there was a “denial of full culpability”.

It also appeared as though the panel wanted to make a statement over future incidents, writing “The amount of mitigation is not and should not be a default setting. Too often it has the appearance of being.”

Jegou’s full judgement, at the time of writing, has not been released, but it will be intriguing to see whether those comments have been heeded by this independent panel.

That judgement will also reveal if there was more video evidence available at the hearing as while there was obvious contact around the eyes, it was not necessarily clear if the France flanker’s fingers made contact with the eye(s) as was determined by the panel.

Objectively, it is quite obvious why there is a disparity in the punishments, given the World Rugby guidelines in place but, on a subjective level, fans will argue – and perhaps rightly – that Jegou’s actions have not been dealt with severely enough, leading to a rather lenient suspension.

READ MORE: France star Oscar Jegou learns eye-gouge disciplinary fate and it’s not nearly as bad as you’d think