Why Johan Deysel got a ‘ludicrous’ ban after injuring Antoine Dupont

Namibia captain Johan Deysel has been hit with a hefty six-game ban for his tackle on Antoine Dupont during the Rugby World Cup clash.

The decision means that he will miss his side’s final two matches in the tournament against Uruguay and Italy.

He will also miss his next three club games – if he signs with one and doesn’t retire after his Colomiers contract came to an end – with one week of his ban shaved off through tackle school.

The decisions around red cards and suspensions in the build-up to and during the World Cup has polarised fans, and while most agreed that Deysel was deserving a red card, the length of his suspension has not been received well.

“Outcome-based judgment, with a Dupont tax thrown in,” one fan wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

Former England fly-half Andy Goode added: “Ludicrous ban for Johan Deysel in comparison to other bans or lack of handed out at times. Feels like this ban is down to the fact he injured Dupont and that he’s playing for a Tier 2 nation. Very poor from the judicial committee.”

Planet Rugby breaks down the decision and explains why Dupont’s injury did result in a heftier ban for the Namibian skipper.

Deysel’s independent disciplinary hearing

For starters, the Namibian centre was given a full mitigation of 50 per cent on his sanction, more if you include the extra week taken off for World Rugby’s coaching intervention programme.

He was granted the maximum mitigation after accepting that foul play had occurred and that the offence warranted a red card. He also has a clean disciplinary record and apologised to Dupont.

Deysel’s offence was contrary to Law 9.13 (dangerous tackle), and the committee judged that the act of foul play was at the top end of the scale of seriousness of offending, having regard to the degree of recklessness involved in the offending, the vulnerability of the victim player and the significant injury to him.

Because Deysel made contact with Dupont’s head, his tackle automatically met the mid-range sanction (6 weeks). However, the committee upgraded it to the top range (10+ weeks).

Johan Deysel clatters Antoine Dupont 🤕

It's upgraded to a red 🟥#RWC2023 pic.twitter.com/nPBNEgu1RO

— ITV Rugby (@ITVRugby) September 21, 2023

Dupont’s injury does factor into the ban

Dupont sustained a facial fracture from the incident, and the suspicions that his injury led to a lengthier ban for Deysel are true.

Some have moved to dub it ‘Dupont tax’ but it has nothing to do with the standing of the player but rather the fact that it is in World Rugby’s regulations.

World Rugby Regulation 17.18.1 regarding the assessment of seriousness of the Foul Play states the following:

“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.”

In the Deysel-Dupont case the following come into play: b, g and i.

Deysel’s tackle was deemed to be (b) reckless and he knew or should have known there was a risk of committing an act of foul play. It also led to Dupont being injured (g), removed from play and resulted in surgery and, finally, the French captain was in a vulnerable position after passing the ball and was unable to protect himself (i).

READ MORE: Opinion: Why getting Eddie Jones back would be a huge mistake for Japan