Rassie’s latest law provocation doesn’t sit right, regardless of the Boks’ intentions

Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus has again riled the world of rugby with the use of a particularly questionable tactic during Saturday’s 45-0 win over Italy.

At the kick-off to the match, centre Andre Esterhuizen was clearly offside when he collected the deliberately short kick by flyhalf Manie Libbok.

Under Law 12.5, “When the ball is kicked: team-mates of the kicker must be behind the ball.” If not, the sanction is a scrum.

Law 12.6 states, “The ball must reach the 10-metre line”, and if not, the sanction is a scrum to the opposing team, or the option of the kick being retaken.

The Boks knew this and hoped that Italy would opt for a scrum, which they did. It’s also likely that they cleared it with referee Andrew Brace, because the official could have taken a sterner view and imposed Law 9.7, which stipulates that “a player must not intentionally infringe any law of the game”.

Or he could have invoked Law 9.27, which states: “A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship.”

He did neither and adjudicated the action under Law 12, which relates directly to the kick-off. As it turned out, Brace penalised the Boks for early engagement in the scrum and Italy earned a free kick.

As an act of provocation by the Boks, it was successful. As an act of sportsmanship, it was questionable.

Of course, players intentionally infringe laws of the game most of the time — think of any breakdown where players try to slow the ball, or a defensive line where teams steal half a metre.

‘Aura farming’

But it feels especially cynical when a team uses such a blatant tactic as the Boks did from the start of the match, all in the name of gaining a scrum — and not even one on their own ball.

They are such a good team, do they really need to employ these tricks?

Teenagers have a phrase for it — “aura farming” — which is the act of intentionally trying to appear cool or confident, often in a way that might seem over-the-top or even cringeworthy to others.

It’s not even that original, as it’s a variation of the old tactic of kicking the ball dead from the kick-off or a restart to force a scrum.

Italy coach Gonzalo Quesada was not pleased with what he believed to be an insult by the Boks.

“I didn’t take it very well, they can beat us without needing to do this kind of tactic,” said Quesada after the match.

“These last couple of weeks, we’ve been extremely respectful, coming here with a lot of humility — the land of the world champions and deserved double world champions.

“We know that when they prepared for this game, they decided to dominate us and show us why they are the first team in the world.

“I was surprised because I don’t know if it was something we did or said that created that first moment. They didn’t need to do that to beat us.”

Just what Erasmus and the Boks hoped to achieve with this ploy is unclear, although Erasmus justified it after the match.

“We wanted to earn a scrum to get into the game because last week [during the first Test won 42-24 by the Boks], we found they quickly played channel one in the scrum and the ball was out,” said Erasmus.

“We make a lot of little plans that sometimes don’t pay off, that people don’t know of. Sometimes people just see the things that do work, and this time it backfired against us.

“We had a plan, but then we had the free kick against us. It was a good plan in theory, but a bad plan from a practical point of view.

“Sometimes those things work, and sometimes they do not. We will not be able to do that again for a few games, as people have seen it now.”

The Boks might not be able to do it again at all if officials reflect on it, because it didn’t sit right.

The officials could have imposed a penalty under laws 9.7 and 9.27, which is almost certainly what will happen if the Boks do this in future. The Boks won’t be able to do it again, which begs the question: What did they achieve by doing it?

Defensive

As South Africans, we can be very defensive about the Boks and Rassie, and approve of his tactics under the banner of “innovation”, but was this really that ground-breaking?

It’s also different to the scrum the Boks called from a mark against France during Rugby World Cup 2023, which was an option until World Rugby changed the law.

On that occasion, the Boks wanted to tire the French forwards by forcing them to scrum, and it was on South African ball.

Against Italy, it was the first play of the game, and its only intention was to provoke. Some might believe Quesada was right that it was insulting to Italy.

Conversely, Italy’s appalling discipline at the breakdown, which was heavily penalised by Brace, could be viewed as equally cynical. They didn’t want the Boks to gain quick ruck ball and did everything to slow it — often illegally.

It happens to a greater or lesser degree in every game, but when players are spotted, the sanction is a penalty. Law 12 relating to the kick-off only demands a scrum or a restart. Perhaps lawmakers need to add the word “intentional” to the law, and up the sanction to a penalty.

The Boks’ other innovation in the match, the midfield “lineout” resulting in a rolling maul, was much more palatable.

This requires planning, skill, timing and is done with, shall we say, a positive objective. The Boks scored two tries from two attempts.

Erasmus admitted he had taken the idea from Paul Roos Gymnasium, where some of their teams have been doing it.

The rolling maul, generally, is an anomalous action, which has come under scrutiny before. The very idea of the ball being shipped to the back of a pod of players, who effectively shield the ball carrier, would be penalised as “obstruction” in every other action of the game.

The maul legalises obstruction. By taking it to the extremes of setting up midfield mauls, the Boks might inadvertently be hastening the outlawing of the entire concept.

It’s hard to believe that’s their intention, but with Rassie, who knows? DM