England great slams Eben Etzebeth's reduced eye-gouge ban as 'far too lenient'

Following on from his November 29 sending off in Cardiff after making contact with the eye of Wales' Alex Mann, Etzebeth learned last Thursday that he will serve a 12-match ban and won't play for his club, the Durban-based Sharks, until it expires after a United Rugby Championship game against Cardiff on March 27.

Retired English scrum-half Youngs, though, insisted that the 18-match entry point punishment for the eye-gouge should have stood to send out a more credible message that this type of foul play can't be tolerated in rugby.

Instead, the disciplinary hearing committee allowed mitigating factors to be taken into account, reducing the sanction to 12 games much to Youngs' annoyance.

Speaking on the latest episode of For The Love Of Rugby, the show he co-hosts with Dan Cole, Youngs said: "When you look at it as a whole, I'd say 18 weeks sounds about right. You make contact with someone's eye and they have basically said that it was intentional; it has to be 18 or more. It does.

"The big issue here, or certainly where people's frustration is, is the fact the mitigating factors include previous records that then reduce it down to 12. That shouldn't count in this case.

England's all-time record cap holder added: "You have gouged someone in the eye; 18 weeks sounds about right. That is a hefty ban for something you should never ever do on a rugby field. 18 weeks seems okay. Most people would go, '18 weeks, yeah, about appropriate'. But to reduce it down to 12, that shouldn't be reduced because of previous (good records).

"If you make a high tackle or maybe do a spear tackle and you sort of slip, then I get there is mitigating factors in terms of have they got a clean record previously, how many tackles have they made in their whole career and only have had X-amount of bans?

"With something like an eye-gouge, you can't mess around with a thing like that. For it to be reduced on previous records, I don't agree with that part. For a lot of people, 18 weeks, they would have gone, 'Yeah, about right'.

"You have identified it is intentional - well then there is no mitigation in terms of what you have done previously. You have done that intentionally, so yeah, 18 weeks, I would have gone 'That sounds about right'. Twelve weeks? That is short of what it should be."

Cole, his fellow retired England centurion, added: "If it was reckless and got reduced down, fair enough, but because it was deemed intentional, to then reduce it down on previous, not just in this case but in general, as soon as it is deemed intentional it should just stay as the ban."

READ MORE: Competition for places ramps up as Stormers welcome back key Springbok stars