Disgraceful URC ruling against Jan-Hendrik Wessels must be challenged in the highest court

South African rugby and the United Rugby Championship have enjoyed a protracted honeymoon over the last three years or so, but the disgraceful handling of the Jan-Hendrik Wessels affair has ended that.

It is time for the heavyweight administrators of the game in this country to roll up their sleeves and demand justice after a disgraceful initial hearing into the allegation of genital grabbing was followed up by an appeal hearing that was emasculated — if you will pardon the expression — of any purpose to find the truth. They more or less covered up the findings of the first hearing.

SA Rugby, the Bulls, and their financiers Patrice Motsepe and Johann Rupert, must take this farce to the Council for Arbitration in Sport, because a few simple facts remain — firstly, there remains no evidence to convict Wessels of molesting Connacht’s Josh Murphy during a ruck; secondly, it is Wessels’ word against that of Murphy.

The latter says that Wessels grabbed him in the genitals; the former emphatically denies it.

There are stills from the television coverage that show Wessels' arm stretching toward Murphy’s lower body. But Wessels says this was because he was trying to free his trapped leg.

Anyone who has played rugby knows that a ruck is a tangle of limbs — heads, hands, and boots end up in all kinds of positions.

The first hearing convicted Wessels on the word of Murphy and the unconvincing photo stills.

For the appeal, the Bulls asked for a “De Novo” (start afresh) hearing, but they were turned down. This was the first slap on the face.

The Bulls provided a report from a urologist which rubbished Murphy’s contention that his genitals were grabbed and twisted for 3-5 seconds, while reports from a human movement specialist and a ruck specialist supported Wessels’ argument that he was trying to free his leg.

The panel threw out these arguments.

More weight was given to the evidence given by Citing Commissioner Peter Ferguson, who works for the Irish Rugby Union.

Ferguson stated that he had a line of vision to the ruck from about 20 metres away, but the Bulls' legal team discovered that the closest stand was closed to the public, so the nearest Ferguson could have been was about 50m away.

But whether it is 20m or 50m, how on earth can a man in the stands witness with any accuracy what goes on in the hurly burly of a fierce ruck? Superman's vision would be required.

Frighteningly, the verbal evidence given by Murphy seems to have carried the day. This is the flank who punched Wessels in the back of the head as the ruck broke up and was red-carded for the offence.

It has not been considered by either panel that Murphy might have had reason to blame his punch on “retaliation” — he went into the game on the back of two previous red cards. His disciplinary record is poor, and a third red card would have landed him in serious hot water.

Murphy had a hearing and, unbelievably, had the red card chalked off. Even if he had felt his “retaliation” was justified, since when are you allowed to retaliate with further foul play?

We often see referees overturn penalties because of retaliation, with the words from the referee, “You cannot take the law into your own hands.”

Now that has been turned on its head. The exoneration of Murphy for punching Wessels says that retaliation is now okay.

Possibly even worse, the conviction of Wessels, mostly because of the accusation of a rival player, creates a minefield of future allegations.

The precedent has been set. The URC’s disciplinary tribunals have convicted a player mostly based on the hearsay of another.

Worryingly, both these tribunals have ignored the precedent of the 2023 World Cup case, where England’s Tom Curry accused South Africa’s Bongi Mbonambi of a racial slur.

It was Curry’s word against that of Mbonambi. World Rugby’s hearing found that they had no audio evidence to convict the Bok hooker, and the case was thrown out.

The same should have happened with the Murphy-Wessels case.

End of story.