Mauls : uncounterable rolling boredom

.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.