Rassie ‘livid’ after hooker Wessels cops nine-week ban for alleged testicle assault

The Bulls are set to appeal against a nine-week ban handed to prop/hooker Jan-Hendrik Wessels for an act “against the spirit of good sportsmanship”.

The burly front-ranker was punched by Connacht flanker Josh Murphy in the 19th minute of their United Rugby Championship (URC) match last Friday. The Irishman alleged that Wessels had grabbed his testicles at the ruck, causing him to react violently.

Murphy received a red card for his actions, while Wessels played on. Only later was the Bulls man cited for the alleged assault on the Irishman's nether regions.

Wessels is a key member of the Springbok squad and looked guaranteed to be one of the two hookers for vital matches against France and Ireland on the Boks’ coming Northern Hemisphere tour. Those chances are slim now.

“The Vodacom Bulls fully respect and will adhere to the judicial process, which provides for an appeal opportunity,” Bulls chief executive Edgar Rathbone told Daily Maverick. They will appeal.

Initial reports that Wessels was facing a nine-week ban circulated in the past few days, and the URC confirmed the sanction late on Thursday.

“The panel overseeing the disciplinary process, Declan Goodwin (Chair, Wales), Simon Thomas (Wales) and Leah Thomas (Wales) were satisfied that an act of foul play had occurred,” a statement from the URC noted.

“It found the incident met the Red Card threshold, with entry of low-end warranting a 12-week suspension.

“The panel reduced the suspension by three weeks (25% mitigation) due to the player’s good conduct prior to and at the hearing and good record, which results in a nine-game suspension.”

Available video evidence of the incident clearly shows Wessels looking in the opposite direction to Murphy, while there is no video evidence of any genital assault. Wessels’ head position suggested that it was unlikely it was a deliberate act — if it even happened.

The URC has not released full details of the panel’s judgment and therefore the thinking process behind its sanction. According to sources, it came down to a “he said, he said” decision between Wessels and Murphy.

The panel chose to believe the man who was red-carded for throwing a punch. It’s no wonder the Bulls will appeal, which they have 72 hours to do.

To add to the controversy, the same panel later rescinded Murphy's red card and he is free to play.

Rassie weighs in

Hours before the formal outcome, Bok coach Rassie Erasmus, clearly knowing what the sanction was, took to social media to fire some broadsides at the URC, and by extension, Irish rugby.

“It just got tougher!! We now have to beat them on the field and in the boardrooms. Hamba man. Tsek. Loop Kak,” Erasmus said on X.

It was a short message loaded with innuendo. “Them” clearly means the Northern Hemisphere teams, particularly Ireland. “On the field” obviously refers to key matches on the tour, notably France and Ireland. “And in the boardrooms,” suggests that Erasmus would urge the Bulls to appeal.

As for the rest, only Erasmus knows to whom he was referring. According to several sources, the Bok coach was “livid” over the finding.

A full written report was not available on Thursday, with a URC spokesperson saying it was a complicated matter and would take some time.

But time is the one thing Erasmus and the Boks do not have. They meet France on 8 November and Ireland on 22 November.

While the needs of the Bok team are important, it’s understood that Wessels denied the allegations. He also has a reputation to salvage, as this is a serious claim. Grabbing an opponent’s genitals is one of the unwritten (and written) no-nos of the game.

The appeal could take a week before it is heard — possibly even longer — meaning that even if he is cleared, Wessels might miss at least some of the Boks’ tour.

Precedent

The option to appeal exists in all cases, but in one such as this, where it comes down to the word of one player against another, an appeal was inevitable.

Wessels believes he did nothing wrong, while Murphy suffered no lasting injury.

In 2021, Stormers lock Adré Smith was cited and banned for eight weeks for allegedly biting an opponent, Niall Scannell of Munster (another Irish team).

Smith was aggrieved at the process, which also came down to his word against Scannell’s. In the initial “guilty” finding in that case, the panel stated: “The player [Smith] failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that foul play had not occurred and selected a low-range entry point.”

The Stormers lock later won his appeal and was cleared.

It does raise the question of the judicial system. In Smith’s case and in Wessels’ case, as defendants, they were asked to disprove that the incidents occurred.

So, if the citing commissioner makes a poor decision to cite a player, the player must then prove them wrong. It seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Surely, without irrefutable visual evidence, it’s up to the “victim” to prove that the incident occurred and not the other way around?

In the Wessels case, this will be a key battleground in the appeal. DM