Aoife Wafer signs for Premiership Women's Rugby side

The All Blacks managed McCaw and Carter very carefully leading to 2015. Same-same.

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.

I don’t agree that Conan hasn’t looked on it physically, so far. He has been second fiddle at club and country to best current 8 in the sport, but that’s no reflection on him. He still has the muscle memory of having played 199 mins of the last 240 min series.

Pollock doesn’t look close to 17st. His metrics vary quite wildly between club, country and lions. His U20 listing is from this year and has him a shade over 6 FT and under 100 kilos (15st 7lbs) and seems to be more consistent. I don’t see how he would have added significant weight this year in-season.

The only grey on this is whether the referee deems the act deliberate. And on the spot, in real time, the referee could make the incorrect judgement call perhaps not seeing it as deliberate.

In hindsight I’m sure the referee would agree that it should have been a penalty as it was a deliberate infringement.

I actually think the boks messed up in that they probably intended to make it look less obvious. Like perhaps a grubber into Esterhuisen within the 10. That’s how it looked to me.

I also don’t understand why they didn’t just take the kick normally and just have Esterhuisen ahead of the kicker, instead of into his hands.

But anyway. Next time Manie just needs to drop the ball as he takes the kickoff (knock-on). Or kick the ball moer-toe, so it goes dead.

-Pollock has been fantastic, a breath of fresh air. Would love to see him in the tests before the pro game beats these instincts out of him

-With Noah out, Valetini in doubt, Skelton likely not fit, it is hard to see the WBs competing. Makes it worse that they are going with a debut 10 with Lynagh. A failure of planning for this cycle for sure, but this failure goes back 10+ years of squad and selection mismanagement after the 2015 RWC. How many coach changes and players chopped and changed has led to this.

I’d love to be wrong but don’t see the WBs firing a shot here unfortunately

But so long as rule 9.1.2. Is upheld going forward, to the letter of the law, then that’s that.

Wiese was stupid. End of story.

If the players you’ve cited have moved down the pecking order, I’m sure they’re aware of why and what they need to do.

But I think all the selections against the Baa Baas, Italy and Georgia are hardly a slight against local players (or any players at all) and more an opportunity to give players a chance and build depth.

It’s the only opportunity this year to do so - selections in the RC and against the opposition we’re facing at the end of the year won’t be as experimental.

I’d be surprised if Siya plays more than 8/9 games a year if he’s to get to 2027 to captain the Boks for the 3-peat

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 think few teams would be brave enough to do this on a regular basis.

But in the event that it does become a practiced and regularly executed move by various teams, I’d like to see how it plays out before calling it a no-go and changing the rules. See how much it becomes a regular feature in matches and see how teams counter the move.

Your argument about removing the contest in open play is a valid one. I agree, that is the intention. But on kick-offs and restarts that’s exactly the current situation. The lifted jumper can’t be touched by the opposing team creating the very scenario of eliminating the contest for the ball.

So if preserving the contest is a reason for changing the law - then lifting jumpers on kick-offs should be stopped too at the same time. Kickoffs and restarts happen numerous times in every game. Compared to this move which might feature once in a blue moon.

Perhaps having more contestable kick-offs in every game will make for a positive outcome? Deep restarts, aggressive kick chasers by speedy wings.

Admittedly, The lift in open play is a bizarre move and it’s clearly about testing the limits of the laws whilst giving teams an edge over the competition. If it gets banned for good reasons, no issue.

But thank you Paul Roos u14B and Rassie Erasmus for making my life a little less dull these past few days.