Nigel Owens on Etzebeth Ban as He Slams Rugby’s ‘Chaotic’ System
The former Test referee says the 12-week ban for Eben Etzebeth exposes “chaotic” disciplinary standards that are eroding trust across global rugby.
Nigel Owens has delivered a sharp rebuke of rugby’s disciplinary framework after Eben Etzebeth received a 12-week suspension for eye contact on Wales flanker Alex Mann. The retired Welsh referee, widely respected across the UK, Australia and New Zealand rugby communities, said the process behind the ruling was “a total, total mess” and a symptom of a sport losing consistency at a crucial time.
The incident — a thumb to the eye area during the final moments of South Africa’s win in Cardiff — triggered immediate backlash. Many argued the Springbok enforcer should face a severe punishment. Instead, the saga dragged across several days before the ban was finally confirmed.
Owens accepts the punishment itself is significant, but argues the way it was reached highlights deeper structural problems.
What Happened in Cardiff
Etzebeth was sent off late in the Test at the Principality Stadium after making contact with Mann’s eye during a ruck. The footage circulated quickly, prompting outrage among fans and pundits who felt the act crossed a clear red line.
A disciplinary panel convened earlier in the week, but the hearing extended far longer than expected. When the decision eventually dropped — a 12-week suspension — the reaction was split. Some felt it was lenient, others felt the drawn-out deliberations undermined the credibility of the process more than the punishment itself.
Owens’ Verdict: Strong Ban, Weak System
Speaking on the On The Ball podcast, Owens clarified that he does not view Etzebeth as a dirty player. He’s refereed the Springbok lock “many, many times” and insists his reputation does not match the incident.
But for Owens, the real issue lies elsewhere.
“The biggest issue I’ve had is the inconsistencies with the disciplinary process,” he said. “You get one player getting two weeks, another getting six, another getting twelve. Then someone says sorry and suddenly they knock three weeks off. Then ‘tackle school’ takes another week off. It’s a total, total mess.”
He argued that if rugby wants to change player behaviour, the punishments must be firmer and far more predictable.
“If you get six weeks, you get six weeks. You shouldn’t end up with two weeks after all the nonsense around reductions.”
Owens believes Etzebeth is “lucky” the suspension wasn’t longer.
“A 12-week ban is hefty, but considering how dangerous eye contact is, many expected more. He’s fortunate not to get double that.”
Why This Matters for Rugby
The Etzebeth ruling highlights a repeated concern: players, coaches and fans no longer understand how punishments are determined.
This threatens:
- player trust — uncertainty over what constitutes fair play
- coaching preparation — inconsistent precedent makes planning tougher
- fan faith — unpredictable outcomes erode confidence in the sport’s integrity
- the global product — broadcasters and competitions rely on clarity
Owens’ warning is blunt: rugby can’t talk about safety while maintaining a process that feels improvisational.
Past Controversies That Still Linger
Rugby’s judiciary has rarely been far from debate:
- In the UK, Dylan Hartley’s bans — including the infamous biting incident on Stephen Ferris that Owens referenced — remain emblematic of inconsistent sanctions.
- New Zealand fans still cite the uneven rulings during the 2022 Ireland tour and the 2020 Bledisloe series.
- Australian supporters recall the controversial suspensions handed down during Super Rugby Pacific, particularly where similar tackles received wildly different outcomes.
The Etzebeth case taps straight into that history: a sense that rugby’s disciplinary system still can’t find a stable footing.
Looking Ahead — What Needs Fixing
Owens wants a system that is:
- transparent — clear explanations, publicly accessible reasoning
- consistent — similar actions equal similar punishments
- free from excessive reductions — apology discounts, “tackle school” weeks, and procedural technicalities
- focused on deterrence — punishments that actually discourage risk-taking behaviour
His view is simple: rugby can’t promote a safer game while operating under a patchwork judicial model.
The Etzebeth incident is now closed, and the Springbok lock will miss much of the domestic season. But the arguments sparked by his case — from Cardiff to Auckland to Sydney — will continue long after his return.
Owens’ message is clear: rugby’s disciplinary structures must evolve, or the sport risks repeating the same controversies again and again.
