Mauls : uncounterable rolling boredom

LeinsterDub

I'm so bored of watching mauls they aren't a contest for the ball anymore , once set they are uncounterable. Add to that they rarely lead to trys as teams use them as a means of drawing out a penalty

So is it time to outlaw or seriously depower the maul?

ThisRegard

They lead to plenty of tries? How could you not love a great rolling maul?!?!?

sydthebeat

Rarely lead to trys?

Do you not watch much rugby?

errlloyd

This week was particularly bad. I got very angry watching some games. I think we need a stricter interpretation of what is a different "maul" to stop people rolling off the side when they stop. I think refs should call use it sooner.

BBDBB

So you wish to penalise teams who devote time and effort to the perfect execution of a play totally within the laws of the game? What next? Outlawing running with the ball too fast!!

irishbucsfan

Mauls are absolutely not uncounterable. Teams are just naive in their attempts to counter them. There was a period when they were in vogue at club level until everyone just worked out how to counter them, and that then filtered all the way up to international level.

If a team are unable to stop a maul it's because of their own incompetence, not because of any failing in the laws.

LeinsterDub

sydthebeat wrote: »

Rarely lead to trys?

Do you not watch much rugby?

As a percentage of mauls set v trys scored I'd hassard a guest that 90% of them lead to a penalty or the ball is spun wide

LeinsterDub

BBDBB wrote: »

So you wish to penalise teams who devote time and effort to the perfect execution of a play totally within the laws of the game? What next? Outlawing running with the ball too fast!!

The irb/wr have done so before and will again in the future

Bridge93

The maul is too heavily stacked in the attackers favour. It is extremely difficult to defend.
They get an age to set it, even after first warning.
If it goes down it almost always is automatically assumed it has been pulled down
Defenders somehow have to go through a wall of men to disrupt the ball while not being allowed to tackle, go around or even know who has the ball. In all other facets of the game this is blocking and offside but here it's fine.
Not knowing who has it is unfair as when it breaks, attacking pods can charge off and form new ones which defenders can't identify in time and players can then rejoin.

Northamptons last maul in the game just gone took 16 seconds to start moving forward. That is ridiculous.

It's incredibly dull to watch

I hate it. I see it as negative rugby akin to route one football. Totally allowed and FairPlay to those who master it but it does nothing to help encourage this attacking rugby many claim we in the NH need to develop if we are to compete with NZ and Oz

Zzippy

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Mauls are absolutely not uncounterable. Teams are just naive in their attempts to counter them. There was a period when they were in vogue at club level until everyone just worked out how to counter them, and that then filtered all the way up to international level.

If a team are unable to stop a maul it's because of their own incompetence, not because of any failing in the laws.

Ah here, not being able to stop a maul doesn't have to mean incompetence. There's also the problem of the other team maybe being better, more powerful, better drilled/coached, or a referee's interpretation of how the other team are mauling/your team are defending, etc. If it was as simple as you make out there would never be any tries scored off mauls against good teams, and teams wouldn't bother trying it.

Zzippy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

As a percentage of mauls set v trys scored I'd hassard a guest that 90% of them lead to a penalty or the ball is spun wide

Is that not a good outcome though - a penalty? Also it ties in defenders creating space to spin it wide...

CIARAN_BOYLE

It should be warning three seconds in order to get moving or get the ball out imo

Is there a time limit after each warning at the moment?

irishbucsfan

Zzippy wrote: »

Ah here, not being able to stop a maul doesn't have to mean incompetence. There's also the problem of the other team maybe being better, more powerful, better drilled/coached, or a referee's interpretation of how the other team are mauling/your team are defending, etc. If it was as simple as you make out there would never be any tries scored off mauls against good teams, and teams wouldn't bother trying it.

It doesn't mean incompetence, it just means the other team are more competent than you?

former total

What annoys me is that you always see members of the team in possession join from all over the place and are never penalised, but the defending team is always pinged for it.

BBDBB

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The irb/wr have done so before and will again in the future

That's your interpretation of what happened, I can't recall an occasion where the orb or wr have said that's what they were doing.

can I ask how the rise of the choke tackle fits into your view?

Bridge93

There is no reward for less powerful teams getting an initial good defensive drive. Glasgow were clearly not as powerful yet held Northampton up. But the way it's refereed they just have to wait until Northempton organise themselves and get a push on

Buer

I reckon we should get rid of the maul. It eats up far too much time, is static and devalues the game.

I'd also recommend depowering the scrum which is similar and a complete free for all. To do this, I would suggest removing two players from the back row and the scrum just being a means to restart the game with 6 from each team involved. I wouldn't replace those 2 lads elsewhere and just go with 13 men on the field. That would lead to more free flowing play and extra gaps on the field.

Lastly, to increase high tempo and risk taking, teams should have a limited number of attempts to create something and, if they don't, the opposition take possession. Perhaps 6 phases would be enough?

LEAVE THE BLOODY MAUL ALONE.

swiwi_

I have no problem with the maul as described in the laws of the game.

I don't think it's reffed like that though.

For starters, carrying the ball at the back of the maul while using you other hand to grip the back of the next players shorts is in no way binding as described in the laws of the game. I HATE it when a team catches ball in a lineout, they send players charging up either side as a wedge and a block, while the ball is given to a player at the back, who surveys the landscape not bound at all, and then starts pushing at the back ie accidental offside because he wasn't bound.

Pocock mastered this for the Brumbies and Wallabies. Eventually SANZAR tried to clarify what was actually a maul, truck and trailer, obstruction etc, but I don't think it has been brought forward into the european game.

You have to bind onto the player with ball, and then move the ball back, not send a heap of guys forward in advance as obstruction.

dtpc191991

The thing is World Rugby trialled maul collapsing as a counter in 2009 with the ELVs the try an address what was seen as a boring WC. If I remember correctly it wasn't adopted because it completely removed the maul from the game and doing so did very little to improve the game as an attacking spectacle and infact took away from it.

The problem for me is not the maul rather its over use is a symptom of a bigger problem. The NH have become unwilling to use their backline in attack because defences are to good.

To adress this I would move the offside line back 5m. Put a weight cap on players leading to more mobile and athletic forwards and reduce the value more of penalty goal to two points.

swiwi_

Just a few of the actual laws that I think are not reffed properly

A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier.

Placing a hand on another player in the maul does not constitute binding.

Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player joins the maul from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside.

swiwi_

Change is coming 01.06.2016 in the NH anyway

And this was the May 2015 edict, which I think is currently ignored in the main

The Lost Sheep

Could this thread merge into Laws thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055520903&page=63

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm so bored of watching mauls they aren't a contest for the ball anymore, once set they are uncounterable. Add to that they rarely lead to trys as teams use them as a means of drawing out a penalty

So is it time to outlaw or seriously depower the maul?

Just because you feel bored doesn't mean the law should change. Mauls certainly do not rarely lead to trys.

errlloyd wrote: »

This week was particularly bad. I got very angry watching some games. I think we need a stricter interpretation of what is a different "maul" to stop people rolling off the side when they stop. I think refs should call use it sooner.

What would this stricter interpretation be? Why is it needed?

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

It should be warning three seconds in order to get moving or get the ball out imo

Is there a time limit after each warning at the moment?

When maul has stopped moving forward it must moving forward again providing it does so within 5 seconds. If maul stops moving forward a second time and if the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, a reasonable time is allowed for the ball to emerge. If it does not emerge within a reasonable time, a scrum is ordered. - taken from the law book

pickarooney

The SA example from the WR site is a clear example of an already illegal manoeuvre where the forwards push in ahead of the ball carrier who detaches himself before re-binding. What exactly are they changing there?

For the Australian example I'm not sure how it relates to the wording of the text either. Again, the ball carrier fails to remain correctly bound, though it's less blatant. However, he doesn't move backwards so much as get overtaken by his team-mates.

swiwi_

pickarooney wrote: »

The SA example from the WR site is a clear example of an already illegal manoeuvre where the forwards push in ahead of the ball carrier who detaches himself before re-binding. What exactly are they changing there?

For the Australian example I'm not sure how it relates to the wording of the text either. Again, the ball carrier fails to remain correctly bound, though it's less blatant. However, he doesn't move backwards so much as get overtaken by his team-mates.

They're not changing anything in the laws pickarooney, they've issued a clarification and they've asked refs to ref it. We shall see.

Essentially, they want to give the defending team a chance - so you can move the ball to the back by tranferring it from player to player. But a player catching the ball and then rushing to the back while his team-mates surge forward is obstruction and penalised.

Likewise, catching the ball in the air and laying it off to a team-mate not bound while everyone else forms a wall, and then watching as the team-mate with the ball joins the maul is accidental offside. See the SOB example on the WR site.

No need to change the laws, every need to implement them properly.

Zzippy

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It doesn't mean incompetence, it just means the other team are more competent than you?

There's a difference between incompetent and less competent. Just because a more competent team scores a maul try doesn't make the defending team incompetent, which is what you said. That's like saying Dan Carter outplayed Johnny Sexton, so Sexton is incompetent.

LeinsterDub

BBDBB wrote: »

That's your interpretation of what happened, I can't recall an occasion where the orb or wr have said that's what they were doing.

can I ask how the rise of the choke tackle fits into your view?

The irb allowed the defending team to sack the maul a few years ago in a trial. This certainly penalised teams at the time who spent years perfected their mauls

awec

I'd just like to see them refereed more fairly. The defending team is watched like a hawk while the attacking team seems to get free reign.

You see a fair amount of what IMO is truck and trailer these days. Maul moving forward, especially if it's elongated, but the ball carrier at the back is just holding on and following rather than actually being in the maul.

BBDBB

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The irb allowed the defending team to sack the maul a few years ago in a trial. This certainly penalised teams at the time who spent years perfected their mauls

Again, that's your interpretation, what reason did the rib give for making the change. It certainly wasn't to penalise teams who perfected their maul.

LeinsterDub

BBDBB wrote: »

Again, that's your interpretation, what reason did the rib give for making the change. It certainly wasn't to penalise teams who perfected their maul.

Semantics. All law changes will penalise some and benefit others

irishbucsfan

Zzippy wrote: »

There's a difference between incompetent and less competent. Just because a more competent team scores a maul try doesn't make the defending team incompetent, which is what you said. That's like saying Dan Carter outplayed Johnny Sexton, so Sexton is incompetent.

There is no difference between being incompetent and not competent enough to prevent the opposition from scoring. But this is completely off topic.

BBDBB

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Semantics. All law changes will penalise some and benefit others

Actually it is Accuracy, which is fairly fundamental to the changing of a law.
Particularly in the light of an individual interpretation of that law which is what each game is reliant upon from the ref. so whilst it would be easy to dismiss it, the fact remains that it is the existing law that has been analysed from all 3 sides, offensively, defensively and by the ref to create dynamic situations that evolve as teams attempt to gain advantage, prevent advantage and interpret the legality of that situation. My question remains, why should a team who has worked hard to perfect a move be penalised when it's within the law of the game.

The clue to the answer lies in the rise of the choke tackle as a tactic. If your team is good enough, has the tactical nowse/ deviousness and the physical strength then the maul can be neutralised

.ak

Have to let the forwards think they're important.

BBDBB

.ak wrote: »

Have to let the forwards think they're important.

Careful, you might chip a nail

.ak

BBDBB wrote: »

Careful, you might chip a nail

Just so long as my hair's ok.

LeinsterDub

BBDBB wrote: »

My question remains, why should a team who has worked hard to perfect a move be penalised when it's within the law of the game.

Because it would no longer be the law of the game. I'm not talking about arbitrary waking up tomorrow and saying hey no more mauls if it was decided it would be well signed posted. However as others have suggested maybe we just need to enforce the current laws

BBDBB

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Because it would no longer be the law of the game. I'm not talking about arbitrary waking up tomorrow and saying hey no more mauls if it was decided it would be well signed posted. However as others have suggested maybe we just need to enforce the current laws

That's not a reason to change the laws

Ok, I accept that you find the maul boring, that's subjective, it's your valid opinion, but let me assure you there are folk who like the maul and consider it an essential part of the contest both physically and psychologically.

maybe we do, but maybe we don't. For me, One of the best aspects of rugby is the balance of power that's held by the interpretation of what goes on, one of the detrimental aspects is the increasing depowering of the ref, by trying to make decision making more process driven and less interpretation. This has led to endless replays of the same moves from half a dozen different angles, refs deferring to the TMO and an increase In play acting as individuals seek to gain advantage by hoping that they'll milk an advantage. Leave the ref to manage the game, the good ones get most things right and the ones they get wrong tend to even out. If they (collectively) are interpreting maul play in a certain way then it's up to teams to read that and adapt accordingly

Let's get back to rugby being a contest of strength, skill and skulduggery

BBDBB

.ak wrote: »

Just so long as my hair's ok.

I genuinely lolled

LeinsterDub

It's only in recent years I've become bored of them. They aren't a contest anymore. In years gone by they where more of a contest

BBDBB

Ok, so for you, at the moment the balance of dominance lies with the attacking side. Personally I think that's to the benefit of the game, but I could see how any imbalance might be detrimental.

supposing you are right and the imbalance needs to be addressed, surely it's up to the defending side to get better at disrupting the maul without getting penalised as a primary step before we start adjusting laws, however well intentioned, and however well defined the words were, you can guarantee that in a few years time there would be imbalance as defending teams found ways to neutralise it and effectively remove it from the game. It's important that it retains it's potency as an attacking weapon

Yeah_Right

As some others have mentioned, the problem of is how it's reffed. The attacking team gets away with murder and the defenders are heavily scrutinised. At the start of the last season in Super Rugby they clamped down on players joining the maul in front of the ball carrier but then as the season progressed the focus dropped and everyone started doing it again.If it's reffed correctly then it would be a better contest.

It's like with the choke tackle. Defenders hold the ball carrier up, a maul forms, the defending team collapses it and get awarded a scrum. Why aren't they penalised for deliberately collapsing a maul?

LeinsterDub

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/5-key-law-changes-need-know/

Interesting to see some maul changes

CatFromHue

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/5-key-law-changes-need-know/

Interesting to see some maul changes

Yeah I don't know why the changed that rule in the first place.

I wouldn't call them swimmers though, I'd call it drafting :cool:

LeinsterDub

CatFromHue wrote: »

Yeah I don't know why the changed that rule in the first place.

I wouldn't call them swimmers though, I'd call it drafting :cool:

Well it does significantly increase the chance of a knock on and also removes the ability to have your strike runners drafting back and out and making big yards around the side

sheep?

LOSERS

The masters of the dark arts – now less mystique needed.

I lolled.

I think there are some interesting ones in the scrum laws. The advantage being allowed is a huge one imo. It'll be interesting if the 30 second one is applied, or will it go the way of the 60 second kick, and straight scrum feed.

irishbucsfan

sheep? wrote: »

I lolled.

I think there are some interesting ones in the scrum laws. The advantage being allowed is a huge one imo. It'll be interesting if the 30 second one is applied, or will it go the way of the 60 second kick, and straight scrum feed.

A wheel not resulting in a turnover is huge. I'm looking forward to that one.

And as a back row myself, keeping those little twerps out of the pocket gives me one less thing to worry about at scrum time!

Snickers Man

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/5-key-law-changes-need-know/

Interesting to see some maul changes

I note that the site claims that zero tolerance of "diving" and simulation will be welcomed by all except "those who speak a language where inanimate objects have a gender".

Which obviously should include people who put their faith in dilapidated cars, bikes and camper vans with the phrase "She'll be right, Bruce!"

ec18

forgive my ignorance but for the end of the match one..does that mean that a successful conversion will results in a restart if the clock is red or not?

NiallBoo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A wheel not resulting in a turnover is huge. I'm looking forward to that one.

how so? This law has hardly been used in at least a decade?

The stated law that "if a scrum is wheeled through 90 that a scrum is awarded to defending team" has been ignored and the fictitious "if a scrum wheels through 90, a penalty is awarded to the attacking team" for the equally fictitious "deliberately wheeling the scrum" used instead.

The benefit if the former (actual) law is that it places an onus on the attacking team to control their drive and maintain stability, instead of the presumption of guilt for a collapse being with the defending team.

The proposed law should be fine, but the old one would be better if it were implemented.

irishbucsfan

NiallBoo wrote: »

how so? This law has hardly been used in at least a decade?

The stated law that "if a scrum is wheeled through 90 that a scrum is awarded to defending team" has been ignored and the fictitious "if a scrum wheels through 90, a penalty is awarded to the attacking team" for the equally fictitious "deliberately wheeling the scrum" used instead.

The benefit if the former (actual) law is that it places an onus on the attacking team to control their drive and maintain stability, instead of the presumption of guilt for a collapse being with the defending team.

The proposed law should be fine, but the old one would be better if it were implemented.

It's certainly been used extensively over the past decade! Maybe not always at pro level (although it has been applied) but at the level I've played at there are constant attempts to win a turnover this way. The problem is that it's very difficult for the refs to tell when a scrum has turned naturally or not, I would say most refs at amateur level would admit that it's very difficult for them to tell. This takes the pressure of them, teams won't be bringing it around if there's nothing to gain.

NiallBoo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's certainly been used extensively over the past decade! Maybe not always at pro level (although it has been applied) but at the level I've played at there are constant attempts to win a turnover this way. The problem is that it's very difficult for the refs to tell when a scrum has turned naturally or not, I would say most refs at amateur level would admit that it's very difficult for them to tell. This takes the pressure of them, teams won't be bringing it around if there's nothing to gain.

The thing is, there's nothing in the laws that require the wheel to be "natural". (Or organic/ non-gmo fur that matter )

irishbucsfan

NiallBoo wrote: »

The thing is, there's nothing in the laws that require the wheel to be "natural". (Or organic/ non-gmo fur that matter )

It's an abstracted interpretation of the laws sure, but that's how it's refereed.