Former head of Irish referees Owen Doyle claims that Tadhg Furlong and Jan-Hendrik Wessels’ testicle-grabbing incidents were different and that the disciplinary panel would have found it difficult to suspend the British and Irish Lions tighthead prop.

Furlong avoided a ban after he was cited for allegedly groping Gavin Coombes during Leinster’s 24-18 win over Munster in Dublin.

During the match, Coombes reported the alleged incident to referee Andrew Brace in the first half, but TMO Colin Stanley could not find conclusive video evidence to sanction Furlong. The prop was subsequently cited for his actions and appeared before a disciplinary panel last week, which unanimously dismissed the complaint, concluding that he had not committed an act of foul play.

Tadhg Furlong’s testicle-grabbing incident

The decision not to ban the Ireland and Leinster front-rower has proven to be quite controversial, particularly after Springboks and Bulls forward Wessels was slapped with an eight-week ban last year following a similar incident with Connacht’s Josh Murphy.

Wessels was suspended despite the lack of clear video evidence that he groped the Connacht back-rower, who had his red card for punching the Bulls front-rower after the incident rescinded.

Doyle has weighed in on Furlong’s verdict and stated that he believes that there is a difference between the two incidents. The former international referee has again hit out at those who suggest that citing commissioner Peter Ferguson shouldn’t have cited Furlong and those who have criticised Coombes.

“The judicial tribunal hearing Tadhg Furlong’s case undoubtedly faced a very tricky assignment. It took the guts of a full working day before they dismissed the charge, and the Leinster player was free to go. Irrespective of what the final written judgment will say, it’s unlikely that we will hear the full detail of everything which transpired,” Doyle wrote in his Irish Times column.

“While the video of Furlong’s action on Gavin Coombes looked damning, nobody could actually see whether or not there was testicle-grabbing. There has been some criticism of citing commissioner, Peter Ferguson, for levelling the charge in the first place. Not so; once he saw what we’ve all seen, he would have been negligent not to cite. Neither should Coombes be criticised.”

Springbok’s nasty action

He added that there was a line of defence that Furlong could have taken which would have made it difficult for the disciplinary committee to convict him. He argued that Murphy’s immediate retaliation in the Wessels’ case was an indication that something ‘nasty occurred’.

“One potential defence would have been for Furlong to deny the charge, and to state that any contact was inadvertent and completely unintentional,” he continued.

“Without clear evidence to the contrary, and putting aside the emotion involved, the tribunal would have found it hard to convict; a verdict which may well have seen everybody heading to the Four Courts.

Want more from Planet Rugby? Add us as a preferred source on Google to your favourites list for world-class coverage you can trust.

“Also, despite the commentary coming out of South Africa, it was different from the Jan-Hendrik Wessels incident, where Connacht’s Josh Murphy was red carded for his immediate retaliation in whacking the Bulls’ player. On that alone, the probability that something nasty occurred seemed beyond reasonable doubt, which in Furlong’s case it wasn’t. Murphy’s reaction – what all of us would have done – was later adjudicated not to have reached the threshold for red, which was rescinded.”

He added that Furlong’s case has highlighted an issue at the breakdown in the modern game.

“As for this most recent incident, perhaps some good can come out of it all. On health and safety grounds, there is a strong case for specifically outlawing the practice of putting an arm between an opponents legs, in proximity to the groin region, in an effort to lift or destabilise the player. It’s a clearing out technique which the game does not need.”