Credit: S4C
Rugby union’s disciplinary process came under fierce criticism on Tuesday as Makazole Mapimpi, the Springboks wing, was handed a three-week ban despite admitting to making contact “with the eye or eye area” of an opposition player for the second time in his career.
Mapimpi, who scored a try in the 2019 World Cup final victory over England and was part of South Africa’s triumphant squad four years later before withdrawing with injury, was cited following an altercation with Efan Daniel, of Cardiff, in a 42-22 win for his Sharks in a United Rugby Championship fixture on January 25.
He was charged under law 9.12, which states that a player “must not physically or verbally abuse anyone”. The latter is defined as an offence that “includes but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm, shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking”.
Mapimpi, 34, acknowledged in a disciplinary hearing that he had committed an act of play that warranted a red card, with the judicial officer, Irishman David Martin, also taking into account a “similar offence” during the 2022-23 season.
This was another instance of him making contact with the eye or eye area of an opponent, Union Bordeaux-Bègles scrum-half Maxime Lucu, during a Champions Cup meeting in Durban in January 2023.
Despite that history, with the URC charge sheet labelling Mapimpi as a “repeat offender”, the sanction was still given a low entry point of four weeks and halved because of an admission of guilt, a show of remorse and good conduct throughout the process. Crucially, his actions were not viewed as intentional.
One week was added on because of the past Lucu incident, leaving Mapimpi with a ban of three weeks. He will miss the Sharks’ next three URC matches, a trip to face the Bulls before a home-and-away double-header against the Lions, in March.
When the URC announced this outcome on Tuesday evening, it was met with derision on X, with various users questioning how Mapimpi could not have been acting intentionally. Various users termed the decision as “an absolute joke”, “an absolute farce”, a “disgrace” and “absolutely pathetic” as well as “a terrible signal to the game”.
