Opinion: URC suspensions ‘stink of incompetence if not blatant bias’ as Springbok banned on hearsay while UFC-outlawed act overlooked
Bulls and Springboks front rower Jan-Hendrik Wessels and an inset of Connacht's Josh Murphy
An incredibly dangerous precedent has been set in the United Rugby Championship (URC) following the egregious decision to ban Jan-Hendrik Wessels and not Josh Murphy.
In a matter of he said, he said, an all-Welsh disciplinary panel took the word of the Connacht man and not the Bull, letting the former off scot-free and emphatically bringing the hammer down on the latter.
The decision to give Murphy a free pass stinks of incompetence if not blatant bias; there will be accusations of the latter from the public of such, with the Irishman given a free pass for actions even outlawed in the UFC.
That completed a hat-trick of perplexing decisions from the independent disciplinary panels issued this week, as another issued a nonsensical suspension to Sharks winger Makazole Mapimpi, which included international matches that he was unlikely to play in, considering that he was not included in the Springboks squad for the November Tests.
Still, the panel that presided over the incident that occurred in Galway on Friday evening in round four of the URC set the perilous precedent that players can justify their illegal actions by simply claiming that they were victims themselves.
What unfolded
In the 18th minute of the fixture at the Dexcom Stadium, referee Mike Adamson blasts his whistle after witnessing Murphy strike Wessels twice in the head at a messy ruck. The Connacht flanker’s first blow is straight to the back of the head of the Bulls front-rower, and the second was a driving forearm to the face.
“He grabbed my legs,” Wessels shouts from the ground.
Murphy admits wrongdoing and accuses Wessels of groping in his response.
“He grabs me here,” he said, gesturing to his nether region. “Look at it back, he grabbed me right here, I wouldn’t have done it otherwise. Sir, he grabbed me by the nuts straight away.”
This is all clearly heard over the referee’s mic once one strips away the incredibly biased commentary, baying for Wessels to be sanctioned, so much so that they are left astonished by Adamson’s decision to red card Murphy without the help of the URC’s ‘Hawke Eye’ system, which was not available for the fixture.
“What you did is unacceptable,” the referee stated before having a second look at the incident. “I will put everything on, but you come speak to me after.”
The referee, his assistants and TMO Hollie Davidson investigate the accusations that Murphy levelled, but after several angles are reviewed, no evidence of ‘ball tampering’ is identified, and Adamson makes his decision.
The 42ie reporting that Josh Murphy has been cleared to face Munster despite clear-cut evidence of him punching Jan-Hendrik Wessels.
— Jared Wright (@jaredwright17) October 23, 2025
“I’m seeing that as a high degree of force with that strike, so I’m seeing that as a deliberate act of foul play. We agree with that?” the referee remarks.
TMO Davidson didn’t quite agree, stating: “I’m not seeing it as a high degree of danger.” Effectively, she deems that the UFC-banned lashing out didn’t warrant a full red card, which is still available to referees in the URC. This results in Adamson adjusting his call from a permanent sending-off to a 20-minute one, with Connacht able to replace Murphy after the sin-binning period. The referee essentially talked out of the correct call.
“We have looked into the allegation, and there is no evidence of that allegation. What we do see is you striking to the head… It’s going to be a 20-minute red card,” Adamson said in his explanation to Murphy and Connacht skipper Cian Prendergast.
Disciplinary pane; ‘satisfied’ despite clear evidence
While the match officials on the day were unable to find sufficient evidence of groping, the disciplinary panel of Declan Goodwin, Simon Thomas and Leah Thomas, who had no additional video footage at their disposal, did.
“The Panel overseeing the disciplinary process… were satisfied that an act of foul play had occurred and found the incident met the Red Card threshold,” a URC statement confirming the Bok front-rower’s nine-week ban read.
I’ve made my enquiries and it was confirmed that no new tv evidence was presented. So what we saw on tv was used to convict him, which is really gobsmacking
— Brenden Nel (@Brendennel) October 23, 2025
A full written report was not issued by the URC, but Bulls CEO Edgar Rathbone confirmed to Supersport that the club will appeal the decision, with Wessels pleading his innocence throughout the process and looking to clear his name after the accusation and rightly so.
In stark contrast, despite clear-cut evidence that Murphy lashed out at the Bulls star, the same panel deemed that his actions did not warrant a sanction and rescinded his red card.
“The Panel overseeing the disciplinary process… found that while an act of foul play had occurred, it did not meet the Red Card threshold. The 20-minute Red Card was thus rescinded,” the statement read.
A baffling decision and one that sets the precedent that retaliation is fair game if accompanied by accusations of wrongdoing by the opponent, even if there is no evidence to support the allegations.
Burden of proof
World Rugby’s regulations around foul play and the disciplinary process state the following:
“17.15.1 The standard of proof for all matters under this Regulation 17 shall be on the balance of probabilities.”
17.15.3 adds: “At first instance disciplinary hearings, in the event that the Player does not accept that the act(s) of Foul Play which is the subject of the disciplinary hearing warranted the Player being Ordered Off or cited, the burden of proof rests on the Player to show that the referee/citing commissioner was wrong.”
Essentially, the judicial system requires the player to disprove the allegations, and in this case, without sufficient video evidence, it is surely the wrong way round.
Banning Wessels on pure hearsay is a complete contrast to previous disciplinary decisions, notably the high-profile incident during the 2023 Rugby World Cup when England flanker Tom Curry accused Springboks hooker Bongi Mbonambi of making a racial slur against him during the semi-final. World Rugby deemed that there was no evidence to take the matter further.
In 2021, Kyle Sinckler was accused of biting Franco Mostert during the British and Irish Lions – again, the matter was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Make no mistake, if Wessels had admitted to the action – which he has not – or there was evidence of the alleged heinous act, the nine-week ban is fitting if not light, but neither is the case.
Accidental?
In World Rugby’s citing commissioner training guide, it states the following: “When reviewing an incident, it is important to keep an open mind and be prepared to find that a matter that, on first look had all the hallmarks of foul play, was after close analysis, able to be determined as a ‘rugby thing’ that was quite accidental.
“Rarely in the modern game do players deliberately set about to injure an opponent. Part of the citing discipline is to be prepared to give a player the benefit of the doubt if there is justification to do so. In other words, it is quite appropriate to look for reasons initially not to take action against a player.”
It adds that there is “zero tolerance unless contact is clearly accidental” with regards to a “grab, twist, squeeze or strike an opponent in the genital area.”
The line that “rarely in the modern game do players deliberately set about to injure an opponent” is particularly relevant to the incident. Even as a young up-and-coming player, Wessels is not daft enough to grope an opponent and think he will get away with it, considering the several cameras aimed at the action on the pitch, which again provided no evidence of fondling.
It is possible that in this case, Murphy’s ‘nuts’ were in fact groped, but considering the dynamic nature and messiness of the ruck, done so accidentally.
There is precedent for this from the 2013 case involving Samoan full-back James So’oialo and Bok hooker Adriaan Strauss.
In that case, RFU Jude Jeff Blackett dismissed the citing due to the accidental nature of the incident.
“If I am to uphold this citing, I must conclude that the player has lied to me. My assessment of the Player is that he is honest: he immediately accepted that he grabbed an opponent’s testicles – he did not attempt to dispute that fact – and he said that there is no room in the game for the insidious acts,” Blackett’s statement read.
“Further, there was no attempt to weaken the evidence given by Strauss, who himself accepted that there was probably no malicious intention.”
When Adamson blasted his whistle, Murphy argued the reasons for his actions, while a muffled out Wessels bemoaned the flanker grabbing his legs. With the Bulls forward facing away from his opponent, it’s entirely possible that he attempted to shunt him off his lower limbs and got the action wrong.
Murphy escapes scot-free
But the fact remains that the manner in which Murphy reacted to what he perceived to be foul play was out of order, and at the risk of sounding like Matt Williams, against the spirit of the game.
Adamson was spot on when he stated that the Connacht flanker’s actions were ‘unacceptable’, whether his accusation levelled at Wessels are true or not. The referee should have stood by his decision to issue a full red card and not been persuaded by his assistants, but the officials work as a team, and he trusted that Davidson had a better view in the TMO truck. As for the disciplinary panel, there is no excuse for them to reach the incorrect decision, and they should face consequences for it.
They have deemed that lashing out at an opposing player, who was lying prone on the ground, is acceptable.
Their decision to ban Wessels also sends a message that all accusations are true, regardless of a lack of corroborating evidence, and that the accuser is entitled to react as they deem fit without consequence. Not just dangerous but absurd.
Murphy had everything to gain by making the allegation and nothing to lose, and if both sanctions are upheld, the precedent is well and truly set.