Rassie Erasmus defends controversial innovation with accusation directed at Italy

The kick off wasn't really innovation imo. Way to showy and blatant I mean they could have just kicked it out on the full and would have been the same thing.

To me felt more like they were making a statement or commentary on some of the arbitrary laws and loop holes.

Fiddling with the rules of the game is about as exciting as SA rugby gets. Otherwise on the field it’s plod plod boring boring. They are just like the German football teams of the 90’s. yes they won world cups, but were so dull in the way they played that they are best forgotten.

Esterhuizen was about a metre offside when Libbok took the kick.

It may feel that way, but it depends on the specifics of how the Laws are interpreted, in particular the question of when Open Play begins.

Offside is very specifically defined for other set pieces and structured situations (scrum, lineout, ruck, maul). Not sure why, but there is no kickoff-specific definition for offside in the Laws. So if offside exists during kickoff then it must be covered by a more general law.

There is an offside definition for Open Play, but there is a question of whether or not this is an Open Play situation. Prior to Open Play starting there is no offside. Part of the Open Play definition is that it is after the kickoff, but what does “after the kickoff” mean?

You can say that Open Play starts the moment that the ball is kicked, and it seems this is the assumption by many people. But a reasonable alternative reading is that the kickoff is not complete, and Open Play has not started, until the whole kickoff sequence is complete, including the ball going 10m, landing/being-caught in field, etc.

One reason that this is a credible interpretation is that there would be no need for Law 12.5 (that players on the kickers side must be behind the kicker) if Open Play starts when the ball is kicked. In that case players in front of the kicker would be instantly offside and subject to the usual offside rules and sanctions. Law 12.5 is only needed because there is no Open Play (and therefore no offside) until the kickoff sequence is completed.

My guess is that Rassie and team went through this in-depth, possibly with advice from WR, concluding that this is not an offside situation and is entirely governed by the Law 12.5 sanction. That sanction requires a scrum and provides no alternative choices for the opposition (such as would have been the case if they simply kicked it short, kicked it into touch etc).

Smarter folk than me can figure out whether the above interpretation is definitive, but it is certainly not obvious to me that Esterhuizen was offside. On balance I would suggest that the game was not in Open Play and that there were therefore no offside rules in place. In that case it all comes down to the Law 12.5 sanction of opposition scrum, for not being behind the kicker.

BTW - WR can fix this by simply adding that the opposition can have a choice of a retake or a scrum, as they can for other kickoff situations. Italy would have picked the retake, no doubt.

Ugh, you people along with the pundits can't think for yourselves. Only know that when innovation happens, it tests the “status quo” and it gets people's backs up. And get there is no legitimate reason for them saying that. No law says against it and to top it all, Italy got the penalty, so what is the problem?

And then the call for these to be banned? I think the only other person who recognized the genius of it is ABs Head Coach Scott Robertson.

Well whatever the case, Rassie will keep pushing things because that is who he is. If everything everybody else does is ONLY react then those coaches are lazy and need to be replaced otherwise they will continue to watch Rassie racking up a fifth, sixth, seventh, eight RWC Titles and will wonder why they are being left behind.

Come on okes, look a bit, learn a bit, gain an appreciation of rugby laws, tactics and innovations. Then you could be solid quality against a mind like Rassie. He wishes to have an opposing coach who like him likes to try and test things. But sadly none exist.

I would like to inform the author of this, that if you are in front of the kick at a kickoff, that it is not a penalty, as stated in the last sentance

Quesada needs to wind his neck in. Italy bent the rules throughout the two-match series including delaying the feed to the scrum to make it look like the Boks pushed early and cynically holding onto the ball in every ruck. Also, they clearly came with a plan to bait the Boks into getting cards (which worked in the end), by pushing and pulling players after the whistle had gone. Quesada is a hypocrite who should worry more about his side’s pathetic performance than what the opposition is up to.

Should have been a pen regardless. Was unsportsmanlike conduct. They could have at least instructed the kicker to kick it short but instead they chose to do it in a blatant way.