Springboks' Controversial Tactics Spark Rugby Debate After 45-0 Win Over Italy
Nov, 16 2025
On November 15, 2025, the Springboks crushed Italy 45-0 in Gqeberha, Eastern Cape, but the scoreline wasn’t what shocked rugby fans—it was the tactics. With a deliberate short kick-off that tricked Italy into an offside scrum and lineout-style lifts in open play, South Africa pushed the boundaries of the game so far that World Rugby felt compelled to issue a public clarification just weeks later. The match, part of the November Tests 2025 series, ended in a dominant win, but the controversy lingers. And it’s not just about the score. It’s about what happens when innovation collides with interpretation.
How a Kick-Off Became a Scandal
The opening play of the match still haunts Italy’s head coach, Gonzalo Quesada. With the ball still in flight, fullback Manie Libbok chipped the kick-off just five meters, landing it directly in front of Andrew Esterhuizen, who was standing several meters offside. The result? An immediate scrum to Italy, awarded under Law 12.5. But here’s the twist: World Rugby’s July 18, 2025 clarification confirmed this wasn’t an accident. "The actions seen in this example show an intentional violation of the kick-off and restart laws," the governing body stated. Had officials been stricter, the Springboks should have been penalized under Law 9.7a for deliberate infringement. Italy’s federation filed an official complaint. Quesada, visibly stunned, said: "I was really surprised. They can beat us without needing to do these kind of tactics."The Lineout That Wasn’t a Lineout
But the kick-off wasn’t the only innovation. Coach Rassie Erasmus revealed the team had borrowed a tactic from an Under-14 B schools match at Paul Roos Gymnasium in Paarl. In open play, South Africa lifted a forward—just like a lineout—to receive a pass and drive forward as a maul. It worked twice, leading to two tries. The tactic, while unorthodox, didn’t technically break any law. But it stretched them. "Many teams do different tactical moves," Erasmus said. "We saw it at school level and thought: why not?" New Zealand’s head coach, Scott Robertson, wasn’t fazed. "It’s pretty unique, isn’t it?" he said. "That’s the point of difference from every other sport." He even recalled a similar tactic used by Perpignan during his playing days—kicking the ball out on the full with forwards standing behind, forcing a scrum. "It shows why you’re there—you’re there to scrum," Robertson added. The debate isn’t whether it’s clever—it’s whether it’s fair.Red Card Controversy Adds Fuel to the Fire
While tactics dominated headlines, a brutal incident overshadowed the game. In the 11th minute, Springboks lock Franco Mostert was handed a permanent red card for head contact with Italy’s Paolo Garbisi. Television match official James Dolman reviewed the tackle and confirmed: "It was always illegal. No mitigation." The incident was part of a two-man tackle—Ethan Hooker had made clean contact first. Many analysts argued it was a penalty, not a red card. "It hardly looked like a yellow," one video review noted. "It was a two-man tackle. Mostert came in low." The red card came exactly one week after Lood de Jager received a similar dismissal against France in Paris. Both were South Africans. Both were deemed to have made direct head contact. And both occurred under a new World Rugby directive issued in July 2025 instructing referees to be "stronger" on permanent red cards. The irony? Since that directive, there have been zero straight red cards in the English Premiership—despite the introduction of a 20-minute sin-bin for accidental head contact. South Africa, meanwhile, has been hit hardest. "It feels targeted," one former referee told a local outlet. "We’re being held to a standard no other union enforces consistently."What This Means for the Game
World Rugby’s swift clarification on the kick-off tactic signals a clear intent: deliberate law-breaking for tactical gain won’t be tolerated. But the lineout-in-open-play maneuver? That’s still in a gray zone. Coaches are now studying footage of Paul Roos Gymnasium’s U14s. Will other teams copy it? Probably. Will World Rugby ban it? Maybe. But for now, it’s legal—barely.Italy’s attack, meanwhile, was criticized for poor decision-making. They kicked behind South Africa’s defensive line six times. Zero tries. One clear takeaway: when you’re outclassed, don’t gamble. Play the game.
What’s Next?
Mostert faces a 2-3 week suspension. Erasmus will likely tweak the lineout tactic—perhaps make it less obvious. World Rugby is expected to issue updated guidance on restarts by December. Robertson, ever the pragmatist, put it best: "We have laws, not rules. They’re pretty clear, yes or no. And that’s one of those ones that is up for interpretation. We’ll see what comes out." The real question isn’t whether the Springboks broke the rules. It’s whether the rules are ready for a game that’s evolving faster than the rulebook can keep up.Frequently Asked Questions
Was the Springboks’ kick-off tactic illegal?
Yes, according to World Rugby’s July 18, 2025 clarification. While unintentional short kicks are penalized under Law 12.5, deliberate violations trigger Law 9.7a—misconduct. The Springboks’ action was deemed intentional, meaning they should have been penalized with a penalty kick and potentially a yellow card. The fact they weren’t during the match has raised questions about referee consistency.
Can teams legally lift players in open play like a lineout?
There’s no explicit law banning it, but it’s unprecedented at senior levels. The key is whether the action constitutes a maul under Law 16. If the ball is carried and held by two or more players, and the lifted player is part of that group, it may be legal. World Rugby is now reviewing whether this tactic blurs the line between a maul and an illegal lift. For now, it’s a gray area—allowed but under scrutiny.
Why has South Africa been hit so hard by red cards?
Since July 2025, World Rugby has instructed referees to apply stricter standards on head contact, particularly in high-profile matches. South Africa’s physical style and frequent involvement in breakdowns make them more likely to be caught in incidents. But critics point out that domestic leagues like the English Premiership have implemented 20-minute sin-bins for accidental contact—yet issued zero straight reds. This inconsistency has led to accusations of bias.
How did Italy respond to the tactics?
Italy’s head coach Gonzalo Quesada called the tactics disrespectful and expressed frustration, saying his team came to South Africa with humility. Italy’s attack was also poorly executed, with six failed kicks behind the defensive line. Analysts suggest Italy’s frustration stemmed not just from the tactics, but from their own inability to capitalize on opportunities, making the Springboks’ strategy feel even more ruthless.
What’s the likelihood of World Rugby banning the lineout-style maul?
Low, at least for now. World Rugby tends to react to clear safety risks or repeated abuse—not clever tactics. The lineout lift is more about creativity than danger. However, if multiple teams adopt it and it leads to dangerous collisions, the governing body may add a clarification requiring all lifted players to be bound by teammates before being raised. For now, it’s a tactical curiosity, not a threat.
Is this kind of innovation good for rugby?
Coaches like Scott Robertson say yes—innovation keeps the game dynamic. But purists argue that if teams start exploiting loopholes, the sport loses its integrity. The real issue isn’t innovation; it’s enforcement. If World Rugby wants innovation, it must also provide clear boundaries. Right now, teams are playing in the dark, guessing what’s allowed—and that’s a dangerous place for the game to be.