Details emerge around Sinckler/Mostert 'biting' incident in 2nd Test

play article
Subscribers can listen to this article
Springbok lock Franco Mostert
Springbok lock Franco Mostert
David Rogers/Getty Images

World Rugby have ruled that Kyle Sinckler's "bite" on Franco Mostert in the second Test between the British Lions and Springboks was not deliberate.

The citing was dismissed after the match, but now World Rugby have published details of their investigation into the incident. 

Sinckler's defence argued that the incident had taken place during a ruck, where Mostert's arm had been driven into Sinckler's teeth. 

Mostert said he "felt a player from the British & Irish Lions biting" his right forearm and he identified the player as Sinckler.

The video footage of the alleged incident was played to Mostert at the hearing, and he described what he felt "as something really hurting me".

Mostert revealed that he reacted by pushing Sinckler's head towards the ground saying, "Oh you’re f****** biting".

Mostert agreed from watching the video footage that it looked like he had a hold around Sinckler's neck/face with his right arm at the time they two were seen to sink into the ruck.

He could not remember where his right arm was relative to Sinckler's face and he could not say what his right arm was or was not doing in the dynamics of the ruck.

Mostert said he saw a "red dot with teeth marks around it" after the ruck, but he agreed that no teeth marks were visible in the photographs taken of the "mark" after the match.

The video footage showed Mostert, shortly after the alleged incident and at different times, looking at his right arm and he reported the alleged biting incident to the referee.

Sinckler, meanwhile, contended that he did not inflict a bite onto the arm of Mostert.

"The player advanced a case that the 'mark' seen on SA No 5's right forearm resulted from the relevant contact between the respective players and was not caused by the deliberate action of a bite from the player," World Rugby's hearing outcome read.

"It was argued that any contact between the player’s teeth and the skin of SA No 5 was inadvertent and occurred during the moving dynamics between the players in the ruck, that is to say, the 'mark' resulted from the contact of SA No 5's skin travelling across, or being forced into, the exposed teeth of the player, who did not wear a gum shield or mouth guard."

As a result, the citing was dismissed. 

"Having given the appropriate weight to all the evidence before us we have reached the conclusion that we could not be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the player in the 64th minute of the match deliberately inflicted a bite on SA No 5's right forearm," the hearing outcome concluded. 

We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
In times of uncertainty you need journalism you can trust. For 14 free days, you can have access to a world of in-depth analyses, investigative journalism, top opinions and a range of features. Journalism strengthens democracy. Invest in the future today. Thereafter you will be billed R75 per month. You can cancel anytime and if you cancel within 14 days you won't be billed. 
Subscribe to News24
Show Comments ()
Voting Booth
Is the decision to give Aiden Markram the Proteas T20 captaincy the right one?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Yes! Markram is a natural leader
71% - 572 votes
No! He should have been left to focus on his batting
8% - 66 votes
I'm not sure yet. Let's see what results he brings.
21% - 173 votes
Editorial feedback and complaints

Contact the public editor with feedback for our journalists, complaints, queries or suggestions about articles on News24.