We won’t take it anymore. Not the bias, not the injustice, and not the obvious bitterness of those so envious of our rugby success.
Let’s call a spade a spade: the nine-game suspension handed to Jan‑Hendrik Wessels is nothing short of outrageous.
The Bulls and the Springboks utility forward has been suspended under the auspices of a United Rugby Championship (URC) disciplinary process for “grabbing, twisting or squeezing the genitals” of Josh Murphy of Connacht during the 18-minute mark of their clash in Galway.
But — and this is where the problem lies — there was no conclusive video evidence. The referee and TMO team had nothing definitive to go on. Murphy himself complained, yes. But a panel has penalised Wessels, when the on-field officials did not.
So we must ask: why?
Why in 2025 are South African players, and South African teams, still facing the wrath of so-called “independent” judiciaries, while the actual video evidence remains absent or inconclusive?
There is no longer even an attempt to hide the bias as our teams have to overcome the opposition, the referee, the TMO, the broadcast match producer and the post-match judiciary.
Resistance, jealousy, resentment...
When South African sides win, dominate and set the benchmark, you’d expect an acknowledgement of this cycle of excellence. Instead of respect, there is resistance, jealousy, resentment and sometimes even retribution-in-waiting.
The Wessels case stinks of that bitterness.
No clear visuals. On-field the foul was not called. But off-field: bang, nine games.
Meanwhile, Murphy’s red card has been rescinded for striking Wessels in retaliation. That makes a mockery of the process. He lashes out because he claims his genitals were grabbed — and gets the red card overturned. What message does that send? That retaliation is more acceptable than the original alleged offence? When the laws clearly say retaliation is a worse offence.
On what basis did the all-Welsh judicial disciplinary determine that they were “satisfied the act of foul play had occurred”? What did they see, that no one else saw? Convictions can’t be made on assumptions.
It will be challenged by the Bulls and Springboks, but the initial damage has already been done.
Wessels missed Friday’s URC Bulls showdown against Glasgow’s Warriors and, despite the appeal, will probably miss the start of the Springboks five-Test November schedule.
Lighter treatment for others
Other nations, other players — with questionable actions, or worse, video evidence — get lighter treatment.
But not South Africa.
Boks coach Rassie Erasmus is as frustrated, to put it mildly. Earlier this week, he took to his X account: “Now we have to beat them on the field … and in the boardrooms."
Erasmus has been there, when World Rugby banned him from the Springboks for nine months because of his public criticism of match officials.
When other coaches have lashed out at match officiating, it has been a footnote. No disciplinary action taken and no drawn-out processes to prejudice the national set-up.
Consistency is what is missing; consistency in application or interpretation, regardless of the origin of the player or coach.
To victimise a player for an allegation that a match official did not act upon, and to do so without full transparency, is simply shameful. Especially when you consider the extra burden South African teams carry.
Enough is enough
Our rugby leadership must take the lead and be emphatic that enough is enough, and any sanction must come with fairness and justice, and with transparency as to how the verdict was reached.
This is not just about Wessels. It is about principle.
It is difficult enough for 15 good players to beat 15 good players, home or away, without having to counter pre-match prejudice that then turns allegations into fact because of assumptions based on premeditated prejudice.
The laws must be applied fairly, which is not the case and too often affects South African teams.
Bulls captain Ruan Nortje was cleaned out illegally in the build-up to Glasgow’s final try on Friday night. It was obviously illegal, but it did not even warrant a second glance for the match official or the TMO.
I rest my case.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.