Rolling maul dead under ELVs?

[Pfitzy]

Not at all. Sure, it needs to be looked at and experimented with further, but the paranoia about this particular ELV is generally unfounded.

I submit as evidence from the Ireland v France game, the time period on the BBC broadcast of 09:05 until 09:30, where the Irish forwards caught the lineout and successfully drove the ball about 15m upfield before the Froggies came in from the side (and weren't penalised by Owen). Proof positive that it still has a place and that it can be worked if you have the skills.

 

[Pfitzy]

And another thing around the 19 minute mark where the French took the ball in and were held up. The Irish didn't want to collapse it legally (the "easy" option) because then it becomes a tackle/ruck and they have to get away from it. Yet another aspect to the maul remaining a centrepiece of the game.

 

[Thomond78]

Nick, even then, Owens did nothing about the French going for the legs.

The only team that's been able to do this is Munster (which is effectively the Irish pack). I've been watching and playing here, where we've had this ELV in full operation, and it kills the maul.

It's dangerous, it's unenforceable due to the fact that no-one penalises the legs bit and it's shite.

The mere fact that you can only point to one maul in the six months of the NH season thus far says a hell of a lot in and of itself.

 

[Pfitzy]

The mere fact that you can only point to one maul in the six months of the NH season thus far says a hell of a lot in and of itself.

Uh, no. The first thing it indicates is that I've only watched the one game - I don't generally watch NH rugby because I don't have pay tv, and I can't be bothered downloading the club games that are often utter tripe unless a) it involves a french club; or b) it is being played in France and not in a mud pit in the piddly isles

The second thing I should point out is that the thread was not designed to break down every maul in that one game : but instead to point out that there is still room for good mauling if a team is smart enough. If the maul is dying as badly as you say up north, then perhaps its just that you don't have many smart forwards up there. The defence submits as evidence Andy Sheridan.

Nick, even then, Owens did nothing about the French going for the legs.

What you're saying - and I agree wholeheartedly - is that, regardless of the Laws, a correctly refereed maul is a positive thing for rugby.

But two years ago the maul was still abominably refereed - referees didn't look at proper binding for the ball carrier OR enforce the 5 second rule OR the two bites of the cherry to keep it moving. They are also very poor at keeping the defender away from the legs just as they are today. At least here we take one decision out of the referee's hands, because quite frankly they will find a way to cock it up. And its not just a NH thing either. The Waratahs had a very dominant maul for a couple of years under McKenzie, and I often chuckled at the shit we got away with on attack with Freier hanging off the back by one forearm and never getting penalised.

It's dangerous, it's unenforceable due to the fact that no-one penalises the legs bit and it's shite.

Actually, its not any more dangerous than the previous maul Laws. You need a paradigm shift on this one; the problem is you're expecting the maul to form just as it would two years ago, with most of the forwards on the park becoming involved, and then considering the consequences of 10-16 large men collapsing in a heap unexpectedly.

BUT, if the attacking side is expecting the maul to be pulled down by the opposition as a defensive tactic, they know they have to do more to keep it up and don't commit their players in the same way. You could see from this particular Irish maul that they formed a longer chain structure rather than the classic setup and had players hang off near the back, to engage only when numbers started to get short. In fact the Irish forwards were doing exactly as I predicted when the ELVs were used in our short-lived ARC: attacking forwards doing their best to stay up but peeling off left or right to remove defenders from the fray. If the defenders don't commit, increase the pace and make them think hard about being the one bloke trying to snuff out a 5-man drive. Naturally, the removal of truck n trailer is another key factor, even though we're now bordering on obstruction again... which is nothing new for mauls

More dangerous? Bah humbug! Previously we'd still get collapsed mauls by accident. Either that or the attacking team were trying to milk penalties, or defenders were willing to give away three points by collapsing a maul and risking the referee's wrath... not that many yellow cards got handed out for what was considered (back then) such a dangerous move, you'll admit.

What about the mini-mauls that form at tackles when one defender manages to hold the ball carrier up and then gets swamped by attackers and knocked to deck? How dangerous is that for the tackler when the attacking side are deliberately forming and then collapsing a maul!

You can't honestly expect me to believe that mauling under these laws is any more dangerous than it was before Thomond - you're talking out your hat.

 

[Pfitzy]

In fact, now that I think about it: if we're going to get collapsed mauls anyway (by accident or design) then we might as well remove mauling from the game fullstop. And tackling too. And carrying the ball in your hands. So we won't need shoulder pads, mouth guards, or practical haircuts. More parents will be happy to see their kids play this modified version of rugby, and eventually I expect it to look like the FA cup

 

[Thomond78]

The reason it's more dangerous is this, Nick; before, there was no tolerance for collapsing. Pulling down a maul was dangerous, full stop.

Now, we're being told that there's a safe way to pull down a maul, and a dangerous way to pull down a maul. One is fine, the other is penalised.

Except that the dangerous way isn't penalised. Ever. So people do it.

The net result is that you have more mauls pulled down, which is more dangerous. And you have more mauls pulled down in the way that even the current laws say is dangerous, which is definitely more dangerous.

So you've increased the incidence of a more dangerous way of doing something inherently dangerous. Therefore, it's more dangerous.

As it is, there's no need for this. Enforce the requirement to use it or lose it with the one restart, then a count of five law; and crack down on it hard. That way, you get dynamic mauls, with positive play and players tied in. No collapsing, no making it more dangerous, no having the ball buried under a pile of bodies. Simple as that.

 

[Cutter]

The reason it's more dangerous is this, Nick; before, there was no tolerance for collapsing. Pulling down a maul was dangerous, full stop.

Now, we're being told that there's a safe way to pull down a maul, and a dangerous way to pull down a maul. One is fine, the other is penalised.

Except that the dangerous way isn't penalised. Ever. So people do it.

The net result is that you have more mauls pulled down, which is more dangerous. And you have more mauls pulled down in the way that even the current laws say is dangerous, which is definitely more dangerous.

So you've increased the incidence of a more dangerous way of doing something inherently dangerous. Therefore, it's more dangerous.

As it is, there's no need for this. Enforce the requirement to use it or lose it with the one restart, then a count of five law; and crack down on it hard. That way, you get dynamic mauls, with positive play and players tied in. No collapsing, no making it more dangerous, no having the ball buried under a pile of bodies. Simple as that.

Now you are arguing in circles Thomo and you have missed Nick's point, which is a good one, that the mauls will form differently.

If mauls still formed with the same regularity and with the same structure as under the old laws, you might be right that it is more dangerous. However, if there are, as you say, far fewer mauls, even though a higher proportion are being pulled down, it may be safer particularly if the structure of the maul changes.

I think we both know though, it doesnt matter what evidence is presented to you on this topic, you are a man with only one view.

 

[Pfitzy]

The reason it's more dangerous is this, Nick; before, there was no tolerance for collapsing. Pulling down a maul was dangerous, full stop.

Was considered dangerous. There is a difference between my statement and yours. Yours is based on the Law book saying it is dangerous play, but if that was utterly, UTTERLY true, then why would any of the ELV committee be given cause to change it? Maybe they went and did some research, consulted bio-mechanicist type people and all that. Point is, they came away thinking "actually, this pulling down a maul thing is no more dangerous than any other collision on the game" and decided to trial it. I'm quite sure that the committee had the safety of players first and foremost in their mind when they looked at this one, because they knew it'd be controversial. They balanced this with the fact that the Maul was not a contest for the ball in most cases - something against the spirit of rugby - and decided to do something about it.

Enforce the requirement to use it or lose it with the one restart, then a count of five law; and crack down on it hard. That way, you get dynamic mauls, with positive play and players tied in. No collapsing, no making it more dangerous, no having the ball buried under a pile of bodies. Simple as that.

But as we've seen, the referees seem to be incapable of cracking down on the 5-second law for two bites of the cherry at a maul. They can't do something as simple as penalising for attacking the legs FFS so what makes you think they can count to 5?

As I've said before, I reckon the best result would be achieved by returning Mauls to how they were last decade: use it or lose it, ONCE, with no restart and no allowance for moving backwards. Give the attacking team a count of five to form and start driving, but if they stop moving FORWARD the they lose it. Easy.

 

[fatprop]

Does anyone have the stats of injuries from collapsed mauls?

Mauls have been falling over since Adam and I can't remember seeing stretchers regularly being rolled out after collapses.

 

[cyclopath]

Does anyone have the stats of injuries from collapsed mauls?

Mauls have been falling over since Adam and I can't remember seeing stretchers regularly being rolled out after collapses.

Cue Thomo's Medline search! Prepare for stats!

 

[Pfitzy]

It fucking hurts, but then so does scrummaging against a 150kg Samoan.

 

[naza]

It fucking hurts, but then so does scrummaging against a 150kg Samoan.

I didn't realise you're an Islander !

 

[PaarlBok]

This is the only rule I hate under the ELVs. This is a rugby art like scrumming or jumping in a lineout, dead and buried. :angryfire:

 

[RugbyReg]

Didn't the art of 'jumping in the lineout' die when South Africa convinced everyone to allow lifting in the lineout?

 

[PaarlBok]

You mean binding? ???

Rolling mauls from lineouts is a total different thing. You first have to win the ball and the LH have to ignite the TH into mauling joining by the pack.

OK OK backs like myself never can understand it. :nta: Maybe Nods was a forward in his day?

 

[disco]

Mauls have been falling over since Adam and I can't remember seeing stretchers regularly being rolled out after collapses.

Surely a scrum collapsing is just as dangerous? I wish they would ban collapsing a maul & go back to the old rule as it was just one of those elements that made our game so unique.

Didn't the art of 'jumping in the lineout' die when South Africa convinced everyone to allow lifting in the lineout?

I think lifting improved that part of the game.

 

[RugbyReg]

Hey I'm a fan of lifting but I think the "art of jumping" is long gone.

 

[Blue]

Didn't the art of 'jumping in the lineout' die when South Africa convinced everyone to allow lifting in the lineout?

Did we? Just curious.

 

[Pfitzy]

This is the only rule I hate under the ELVs. This is a rugby art like scrumming or jumping in a lineout, dead and buried. :angryfire:

The rule to allow a 5-second start effectively killed maul defense Oom - go back to the way it was, or allow collapses. Rugby is about CONTEST for the BALL. Mauls - under the 5 second rule - are not.

 

[Lee Grant]

Noddy,

Don't go there Nod - don't go there. The lineouts before lifting was "allowed", before it was permitted in law, was an absolute shambles, and a blight on the history of our game.

Sure there were elite jumpers like Eales and Ian Jones who could overcome the free for alls of elbows and fists but in the main it was Rafferty's Rules.

I took a rabid Rabbitohs supporter to a Super 12 game once during Rogers' first year with the Tahs, since he wanted to prove how easy rugby union would be for him. He was umimpressed with the rugby union game as he always had been and was always whingeing about what if the Rabbitohs league team had some of the good Wallabies players. They were wasted in union when they could be playing the real rugby game - rugby league.

On the way home I asked him, perversely, what he liked best about the night.

I thought he would say the chicken noodles cooked in the wok in the members area, but he surprised me by saying something like: "The lineouts - they're OK." And - thinking back, they are. There is a certain majesty about lineout jumpers rising up to take, or defend, a throw.

Lineouts are 100% better now than in the bad old days.

Let's not go there Nod.


PS: Blue

After Oz won the 1991 RWC and went to the RSA the following year, the Wallabies were astounded by how much the SAffers were lifted in the lineouts compared to the rest of the rugby world from which SAffer players had been isolated.

They were also bemused after playing a warm up game, seeing SAffer players queuing up for their "vitamin" shots.