Rolling maul dead under ELVs?

[rugbywhisperer]

There is defensive option available in the maul that I have only seen used once.
When a maul forms and the ball is carried by any player behind the leading player of a team, the team not in posession disengages en-masse and then re-engages what was the maul ( you cannot have a maul without opposition binding one of your players) but is now a group of opposition players all bound to each other AND in front of the ball carrier,
They are all immediately OFF SIDE

that is crafty. massive gamble though, refs arent good at making good choices on situations they have next encountered before.
im tempted to talk to my team about this but if it failed the boys wouldnt be too happy.

Approach the ref before the game and outline your plan, confirm with him the result if it happens and there should be no surprises to you when it occurs in the game.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

or simply played between the legs to someone acting as the scrum half. We could call them the dummy half.

And only 6 mauls in a row or you lose possession.

Nice idea Oirish, but it still wouldn't work out - what you're describing will result in more flying wedges; something that isn't policed in the game at this point either.

Flying wedges are illegal, so that's covered; and they aren't mauls, as there's not a member of the opposition bound in.

If you don't have a member of the opposition in contact with the ball carrier, no maul. End of. So they can't drive forward and, under my proposal, can't smuggle it back (it's not a maul, it's not a ruck, so the open play offside applies, so any players ahead of the ball must retreat behind it or be penalised). They have to, simply, get out of there and get on with the game.


RW, I take your point, but I don't see a problem. As FOS has indicated, you can put it on the ground and ruck over it.

However, if you want, we can have a little exception in there, so the offside in the maul law would now read:

1. No member of the team in possession of the ball in a maul may be in that maul between the ball-carrier in that maul and the opposition goal-line. Penalty: scrum to the team not in possession of the ball.
2. Players in a maul may pass the ball backwards to the rear of a maul in order for the ball to leave the maul. The ball must then leave the maul immediately and may not be held at the back of the maul. If the ball does not immediately leave the maul, the normal offside law applies Penalty: Penalty Kick.

That way, you can pass it back to get it out, but you've got about two seconds to get rid of it once it's at the back, or else everyone in front of the ball is offside and must retreat immediately. That sort it out for you?

RW's defensive one is risky, but there's an easier way to do it; just don't engage first day. It's not a maul, so it's open play, so the open play offside line applies. What you can then do is nip around the back where they're trying to protect the ball and take it. They can't stop you, because they're offside. Italy have done this successfully in internationals in the past.

Unfortunately, competent refs with a pair of plums are a rare commodity at the moment.

That will work, however if the team in posession maintain the ball with the lead player and the defensive team does not engage, it could lead to a driving configuration (technically not a maul) with substantial gain in ground before the other team realises their mistake.

 

[Thomond78]

That'd be illegal, RW; it's a flying wedge. Dangerous play under Law 10 (4) (n). They can't bind onto the ball carrier and drive unless there's someone from the other team there to form a maul.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I would disagree with that.
The Flying Wedge infringement is primarily aimed where a penalty tap is taken and the players bind onto the ball carrier, form a wedge and drive him forward, often with the ball being transfered to another player therby having players IN FRONT of the ball carrier.

In a lineout, it is 'the custom' to take the ball and in many cases form a maul.
If the team not in posession fails to form a maul by binding onto the ball carrier, and the ball carrier then moves in a direction towards the opponents goal line, he has not committed any infringement and it is not the fault of the attacking team if the opposition does not form a maul.
Secondly, as the opposition has NOT engaged the ball carrier how can there be any infringement as no foul play has eventuated. The attacking team in all good conscious drove the ball forward - they had no forewarning a maul would not be formed.

 

[formeropenside]

I would disagree with that.
The Flying Wedge infringement is primarily aimed where a penalty tap is taken and the players bind onto the ball carrier, form a wedge and drive him forward, often with the ball being transfered to another player therby having players IN FRONT of the ball carrier.

In a lineout, it is 'the custom' to take the ball and in many cases form a maul.
If the team not in posession fails to form a maul by binding onto the ball carrier, and the ball carrier then moves in a direction towards the opponents goal line, he has not committed any infringement and it is not the fault of the attacking team if the opposition does not form a maul.
Secondly, as the opposition has NOT engaged the ball carrier how can there be any infringement as no foul play has eventuated. The attacking team in all good conscious drove the ball forward - they had no forewarning a maul would not be formed.

A few years back, Qld defended a lineout maul by doing exactly that: not binding on in defence and taking a step back. It got them two penalties and really put the SA side they were playing that day off their game.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I would disagree with that.
The Flying Wedge infringement is primarily aimed where a penalty tap is taken and the players bind onto the ball carrier, form a wedge and drive him forward, often with the ball being transfered to another player therby having players IN FRONT of the ball carrier.

In a lineout, it is 'the custom' to take the ball and in many cases form a maul.
If the team not in posession fails to form a maul by binding onto the ball carrier, and the ball carrier then moves in a direction towards the opponents goal line, he has not committed any infringement and it is not the fault of the attacking team if the opposition does not form a maul.
Secondly, as the opposition has NOT engaged the ball carrier how can there be any infringement as no foul play has eventuated. The attacking team in all good conscious drove the ball forward - they had no forewarning a maul would not be formed.

A few years back, Qld defended a lineout maul by doing exactly that: not binding on in defence and taking a step back. It got them two penalties and really put the SA side they were playing that day off their game.

And I have questioned why NO ONE since has picked it up and used it - it is a great asset to have.

 

[PhucNgo]

There is defensive option available in the maul that I have only seen used once.
When a maul forms and the ball is carried by any player behind the leading player of a team, the team not in posession disengages en-masse and then re-engages what was the maul ( you cannot have a maul without opposition binding one of your players) but is now a group of opposition players all bound to each other AND in front of the ball carrier,
They are all immediately OFF SIDE

that is crafty. massive gamble though, refs arent good at making good choices on situations they have next encountered before.
im tempted to talk to my team about this but if it failed the boys wouldnt be too happy.

I think from memory the Brumbies tried this against the Bulls a few years back on a wet and shitty day. The Brumbies pack disengaged, the Bulls just kept going and eventually scored. The ref just stood there and did nothing. I seem to recall George Smith being more than a little pissed.

 

[en_force_er]

There is defensive option available in the maul that I have only seen used once.
When a maul forms and the ball is carried by any player behind the leading player of a team, the team not in posession disengages en-masse and then re-engages what was the maul ( you cannot have a maul without opposition binding one of your players) but is now a group of opposition players all bound to each other AND in front of the ball carrier,
They are all immediately OFF SIDE

that is crafty. massive gamble though, refs arent good at making good choices on situations they have next encountered before.
im tempted to talk to my team about this but if it failed the boys wouldnt be too happy.

Approach the ref before the game and outline your plan, confirm with him the result if it happens and there should be no surprises to you when it occurs in the game.

i shall try this then report back.

 

[Pfitzy]

I think from memory the Brumbies tried this against the Bulls a few years back on a wet and shitty day. The Brumbies pack disengaged, the Bulls just kept going and eventually scored. The ref just stood there and did nothing. I seem to recall George Smith being more than a little pissed.

Yep - its in the hands of the ref which is why the maul is so grey an area. The opportunity to clean it up is to treat it like general play - tackle the bastard! It is too simplistic an answer though, because as we've discussed so far, the ref still has to look out for HOW the maul is pulled down. But at least its one less thing to police. Nothing shits me more than getting penalised for pulling down the maul just because the attacking side isn't competent enough to keep it up.

 

[cyclopath]

I think from memory the Brumbies tried this against the Bulls a few years back on a wet and shitty day. The Brumbies pack disengaged, the Bulls just kept going and eventually scored. The ref just stood there and did nothing. I seem to recall George Smith being more than a little pissed.

Yep - its in the hands of the ref which is why the maul is so grey an area. The opportunity to clean it up is to treat it like general play - tackle the bastard! It is too simplistic an answer though, because as we've discussed so far, the ref still has to look out for HOW the maul is pulled down. But at least its one less thing to police. Nothing shits me more than getting penalised for pulling down the maul just because the attacking side isn't competent enough to keep it up.

This is a relevant point, although in most cases I cannot imagine why a side would use the maul if they were crap at it and fell over all the time. It raises the whole ugly issue of subjectivity in refereeing. Why does a scrum collapse? Do you just automatically blame the cheating Aussies because they're obviously rubbish at it? Could it be the opposition being, dare I say it, rat cunning and knowing they'll draw the sucker penalty? Is it an early engage or did one team pull back a bit? Who dropped their bind first?
I think these areas are one of rugby's strengths and weaknesses. It adds variety and unpredictability, but too easily raises the issue of poor or biased refereeing. I couldn't countenance the alternative - THE RUGBY LEAGUE SCRUM!!!
The options raised for having the maul "reinstated" would always have their weaknesses in this regard.

Disclaimer - I like mauls, and do not want to see their demise.

 

[Sully]

I believe a lot of scrums collapse because the Props jersey is too tight to bind on.

 

[Pfitzy]

This is a relevant point, although in most cases I cannot imagine why a side would use the maul if they were crap at it and fell over all the time.

Its not that they are bad at mauling - its just that against a side who can defend a maul, the attacking side might be the one collapsing. How fair is it then that the ref penalises the defending team?

 

[Cutter]

I believe a lot of scrums collapse because the Props jersey is too tight to bind on.

Tight jerseys are in fashion Sully. I cant see that changing. Are built in handles the answer?

 

[mark_s]

I believe a lot of scrums collapse because the Props jersey is too tight to bind on.

You just grab the nuts in that case. Kills too birds with one stone (or is that two stones).