General Rugby Discussion 3

I wonder will a breakaway team join the guinness premiership.

Presumably everything east of Neath (excluding Cardiff) would be considered "East Wales".

If it includes both Llanelli and Swansea, the West Wales team may have to have two home stadia like Munster, otherwise there'll be no chance of getting buy-in from people in the other city if the team is based in one city (meaning people would just see the team as a continuation of the team previously based there).

SA have named their side to face Japan this weekend:

(15-9,1-8):

Cheslin Kolbe, Ethan Hooker, Jesse Kriel, Damian de Allende, Kurt-Lee Arendse, Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu, Cobus Reinach, Ox Nche, Malcolm Marx, Zach Porthen, RG Snyman, Lood de Jager, Siya Kolisi, Franco Mostert, Jasper Wiese

Reps: Johan Grobbelaar, Gerhard Steenekamp, Wilco Louw, Ruan Nortje, Andre Esterhuizen, Kwagga Smith, Grant Williams, Manie Libbok

Few interesting calls in there. Porthen starts - he is 21 and has only played 5 times total (1 start) for the Stormers.

Looks like Kolbe will get the first shot at the full back shirt - it is intriguing how good and dangerous he could be back there. Mostert named on the blindside flank. Leinster have released RG for this one (despite not being required to).

Esterhuizen named in a kind of hybrid role on the bench, implying he might feature in the back row (as has been teased by them).

Jan-Hendrik Wessels' appeal of his 9-week ban for grabbing Josh Murphy's balls a few weeks back is today.

We've seen numerous occasions where when the player is accepting of the charge they get rewarded with some weeks of the suspension reduced in mitigation - I would love to see a scenario today where if this appeal is unsuccessful (and it should be) the ban is lengthened. The appeal can't just be a free shot to re-litigate the original issue.

The actions of Rassie and the general Springbok media around this is pretty disgraceful (but nothing surprising there). The notion that unless the incident is captured on video that we can't be sure of it is utter nonsense.

The report of the citing commissioner is clear and pretty compelling IMO:

“The live television feed, while not conclusive in capturing direct contact, clearly shows Wessels’ right elbow grounded and his head turning backwards toward Murphy,” the report read.

“Simultaneously, Wessels’ left arm, partially obscured, can be seen moving in an unnatural arc toward Murphy’s groin area. The movement is not consistent with any legitimate rucking, grasp or binding action.

“Immediately following the contact, Murphy reacts with visible and audible distress. He attempts to push/strike Wessels away and can be heard, several times, on the referee’s microphone exclaiming, ‘He grabbed me right here!’ gesturing unmistakably to his groin.

“His tone is one of shock, distress, and disbelief, yet he remains articulate and composed in his protest.

“He recounted the incident with clarity and consistency. When asked how long the contact lasted, he estimated ‘three to five seconds’, a timeframe that aligns with the footage and his visible reaction.

“He further stated that his testicles were ‘grabbed and twisted,’ a claim made with conviction and without embellishment.

“I was present at the match, positioned approximately 20 metres from the incident. My direct line of sight corroborated the sequence of events as described by Murphy and partially captured on video.

“The reaction from Murphy was immediate and unmistakably one of frustration.”

The basis of Wessels' appeal appears to center on two alleged "discrepancies" - firstly the citing commissioners statement he was c. 20m away from the incident, when they claim it happened 25m from the touchline, and secondly that Josh Murphy originally claimed the attack lasted 5 seconds and later revised it to 3-5 seconds.

I personally don't think either of these are meaningful or material.

Wessels' continues to claim he was trying to free his knee, and may have made accidental contact with Murphy's testicles.

Wessels' appeal is concluded:

He was unsuccessful in convincing the panel that he was entitled to a fresh hearing, the panel deciding there were not exceptional circumstances to justify such a request.

The appeal proceeded on the basis that he was challenging the decision of the initial hearing and length of the ban imposed. The basis of this required him to prove the first panel erred in its findings.

After review, the panel dismissed the grounds of the appeal, but reduced the ban by one week.

He's now free to play again from Dec 20th.

I'm confused. What does this have to do with the 20 minute red?