Matt Williams: World Rugby vindicated as Eben Etzebeth’s ‘dog act’ ends ‘ridiculous arguments’
Eben Etzebeth and an inset of Matt Williams.
Matt Williams has slammed Eben Etzebeth’s eye-gouge on Alex Mann as a ‘dog act’, but the former Leinster boss is satisfied with the subsequent ban.
Etzebeth has been suspended for 12 matches following his red card in the latter stages of South Africa’s 73-0 victory over Wales in the Springboks’ final game of 2025.
This means that he will be unavailable for the Sharks through to March next year.
World Rugby vindicated
Writing for the Irish Times, Williams hit out at the Springboks lock’s actions but added that World Rugby’s decision to introduce the 20-minute red card while retaining the permanent sanction has been vindicated.
“The action that still sits at the pinnacle of the dog act table is regrettably still with us,” the former Scotland head coach wrote.
“The senselessly violent act of Eben Etzebeth, in attacking the eye of Welsh backrower Alex Mann, did not just break the boundaries of the social contract of what is physically acceptable in our game; it smashed it.
“In Cardiff last weekend, in the 78th minute, despite South Africa leading 73-0, Etzebeth broke the game’s law and rugby’s lore.
“To the officials’ credit, Etzebeth was correctly given a full red card by the referee, putting to bed once and for all the ridiculous arguments that the 20-minute red card had undermined the referee’s ability to correctly sanction egregious foul play.
“Etzebeth received a full red card because his actions were on a totally different level of violence when compared to accidental head contact in a mistimed tackle. Our regulators have correctly changed the sanctions to differentiate between the two.”
Etzebeth’s actions have been widely criticised by pundits, ex-players and even his former teammates.
Ex-hooker Bismarck du Plessis described it as ‘a horrible incident’ while Schalk Burger joked that he was better off punching Mann but added that it was ‘silly’.
Former referee Nigel Owens and England legend Ben Youngs have also weighed in on the controversy with Etzebeth widely slammed for his actions.
The damage to Etzebeth’s reputation
The widespread denunciation from the rugby public is a positive, according to Williams, who believes that the length of the ban also serves as a warning to players thinking of committing similar acts.
“What has been good for rugby is the condemnation of Etzebeth’s actions by players, coaches and all sections of the media. It was an ugly, violent and dangerous act,” he continued.
“The 12-game suspension that was handed down by the judiciary is a substantial punishment. The length of the suspension was not just because eye gouging is a dog act, but because it was committed by one of our game’s best players. Being a role model carries both responsibilities and consequences.
“Rugby’s message regarding eye gouging to future generations has been made crystal clear. By giving Etzebeth a 12-week suspension, World Rugby is telling our current generation, and those of the future, that eye gouging is completely taboo.
“What makes Etzebeth’s actions even more horrendous is that there is no doubt that after 141 test caps, he will rightly sit inside the pantheon of all-time great Springboks second rowers. He has been a player of immense influence and standing within our game. His outstanding abilities and prowess should have been a shining light for future generations. Instead, his actions serve as a warning beacon of the consequences that await any player who stoops to the lowest of the low and gouges a fellow player’s eyes.”
He added: “Once again, a message is being sent by the judiciary to the entire rugby community. No matter your status, no one is bigger than the game and its laws.
“There always were and always will be individuals in every sport who lose control of their emotions and commit senseless acts of violence.
“Regrettably, that is human nature. One of sports’ main functions is to place young people into stressful competitive situations so they can learn how to control those emotions.
“When they fail, no matter the profile of the player, the game’s judiciary must confront and punish them severely or risk losing the social contract that protects every participant now and into the future.”
