Springboks Scrum Tactics: Are They Legal? Kyle Sinckler’s Analysis

Springboks Face All Blacks in Baltimore After Contentious Rugby Championship Scrum Battles

Scrum Mechanics and the Debate Over Walking Around

Scrum tactics sparked public disagreement between coaches Dave Rennie and Rassie Erasmus after South Africa’s 33-26 win in the second Test, where Rennie accused the Springbok pack of walking around the New Zealand forwards. Erasmus maintained that his players push straight. Reviewing the footage on Biggar Thinking, Sinckler noted that the Springboks’ penalty try at Johannesburg—awarded when New Zealand was driven behind their own line—resulted from legal mechanics, with tighthead prop Wilco Louw targeting Asafo Aumua’s left shoulder to open the joint while the pack stayed connected.

Referee Matthew Carley penalized the Springboks on that play, a decision Sinckler termed correct. Conversely, Sinckler described a penalty against Thomas du Toit in the third match as harsh, noting that the tighthead targeted the hooker legitimately after winning the engagement before the scrum collapsed independently of a clear maneuver around the side.

Ball Introduction and Refereeing Standards Under Law 19

The method of ball introduction significantly alters scrum outcomes according to match analysts. When All Blacks introduce possession, they can quickly hook the ball in “channel one” and clear it before defensive pressure mounts. In contrast, when the ball stays in the tunnel during South African feeds, the Springboks extend their collective drive to pressure referees into awarding penalties.

Under World Rugby Law 19, packs must square up and remain stable before the engagement, followed by a straight push parallel to the ground. Sinckler emphasized that referees must blow whistles immediately upon a collapse to ensure safety, warning that automatically penalizing the lowest player risks punishing a player who was driven down rather than one who caused the collapse.