General Rugby Discussion

awec · 30-07-2015 11:46am

If the attacking team get it set up right then they can be impossible to stop legally. Especially since referees will focus their attention on the defending team.

molloyjh · 30-07-2015 12:08pm

awec wrote: »

If the attacking team get it set up right then they can be impossible to stop legally. Especially since referees will focus their attention on the defending team.

The defending team can always find ways to counter an effective line-out maul. Not engaging is always an option, and would therefore mean the kind of obstruction Hansen is alluding to at times in the interview/statement. Getting long arms in to trap the ball/ball carrier can work too (Dev has been excellent at that in the last couple of years). While that's more effective in cases where the maul is being used as a platform to launch a set play it can work in cases where they are going to the line too by preventing a grounding.

Even if a team is on the back foot in a maul it doesn't mean they are helpless either. They can try to redirect it for example similar to wheeling a scrum a small bit to cut off certain options (or just make them harder).

But at the end of the day if a team has a strength in a certain area of the game why should they not be allowed to capitalise on it? A good line-out maul requires as much practice and attention to detail as a lot of other elements of the game. If a side can pull it off effectively they should be allowed to. Just like if they can pull off a high speed counter attack they should be allowed to do that too.

awec · 30-07-2015 12:16pm

If they are looking at maul collapse rules I'd like them to look at teams that collapse the maul immediately after a choke tackle. Never seems to get pinged.

thomond2006 · 30-07-2015 12:25pm

awec wrote: »

If they are looking at maul collapse rules I'd like them to look at teams that collapse the maul immediately after a choke tackle. Never seems to get pinged.

I'm not a fan of the choke tackle. Yes, players that get isolated from their teammates should be punished but the choke tackle just leads to a messy maul as you say and then a scrum which most of the time leads to a reset etc...

AbusesToilets · 30-07-2015 12:35pm

It's on refs to policy it properly. Stop letting players bind on in front of the ball carrier.

sydthebeat · 30-07-2015 12:43pm

awec wrote: »

If they are looking at maul collapse rules I'd like them to look at teams that collapse the maul immediately after a choke tackle. Never seems to get pinged.

its almost impossible to determine who exactly collapses a choke tackle if a ball carrier is surrounded by players from both sides.

Myself, if im involved as the attacking team, i just stand still and fall over if the maul is pushed my way.

molloyjh · 30-07-2015 12:46pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the choke tackle. Yes, players that get isolated from their teammates should be punished but the choke tackle just leads to a messy maul as you say and then a scrum which most of the time leads to a reset etc...

It's not just about guys getting isolated. It can also be about going into to contact too upright. I love the choke tackle tbh. It's a fantastic way to win a turnover from a spectator perspective because you can see exactly what's happening as opposed to the ruck where, especially when watching a game live, it can be hard to know exactly what's going on.

The scrum is a separate issue entirely. And sure if we're going to look at that in conjunction with choke tackles we'd need to look at the ruck as well. How often do we see players prevented from joining the ruck these days? Or defenders flopping conveniently onto the wrong side and/or rolling away in the most disruptive manner possible? There's so much about rucks now that is blatantly illegal and creating unfair scenarios for teams that the choke tackle is a pretty cut and dry fair contest by comparison IMO.

Buer · 30-07-2015 1:29pm

Collapsing a maul is bloody dangerous. That's why it's illegal. They allowed it as part of the ELVs a number of years ago to little avail and it also contributed to an incident in an Argentine national league match where a winger pulled down a maul, with little idea of what he was doing and it came down on him, breaking his neck and killing him.

Keep the mauls. They might not be eye catching but a good maul can pump up the crowd just as much as a flowing back line move. It's up to the players and coaches to stop them.

Flipper22 · 30-07-2015 2:30pm

awec wrote: »

If the attacking team get it set up right then they can be impossible to stop legally. Especially since referees will focus their attention on the defending team.

I've seen this said quite a few times but it really isn't true. There are plenty of ways to counter a maul, and to not allow one form in the first place. Sure, if a team is allowed set a maul perfectly it'll be hard to defend it legally, but then it's pretty hard to defend against Mathieu Bastareaud legally too.

Maul contests are something I really enjoy, loads of potential for innovation and brains.

Sangre · 30-07-2015 2:49pm

Flipper22 wrote: »

I've seen this said quite a few times but it really isn't true. There are plenty of ways to counter a maul, and to not allow one form in the first place. Sure, if a team is allowed set a maul perfectly it'll be hard to defend it legally, but then it's pretty hard to defend against Mathieu Bastareaud legally too.

Maul contests are something I really enjoy, loads of potential for innovation and brains.

I love the impact a good maul can have on a game. It forces the defending team to either try and compete for the ball in the air (and therefore not be optimally setup for the maul defence) or else not-compete in the air at all with a view to defending the maul. Of course, this latter approach allows the attacking team to get quick lineout ball if they instead opt to put it out wide.

The impact of the maul is not just limited to the metres gained but its impact on the team defence as a whole (as well as the defending team's attitude to conceding penalties).

JPNelsforearm · 30-07-2015 5:40pm

I dont understand the drive to make the game simpler, rugby league has that avenue covered, why would we change the game to be more like League?? Mauls choke tackles, whatever, force teams to think, create tactical variety etc.

pickarooney · 30-07-2015 7:43pm

Choke tackles are a rugby league invention though in fairness.

AbusesToilets · 30-07-2015 8:32pm

There are many different ways to counter the maul, Ireland used a variety of them this past season. Refusing to engage, steering it towards the touch line, peeling off defenders, worming up the middle. I loves a good maul.

Yeah_Right · 30-07-2015 11:10pm

pickarooney wrote: »

Choke tackles are a rugby league invention though in fairness.

You have clearly never played a game of rugby in your life. That is one of the most ignorant and stupid statements ever. What benefit would a choke tackle have in league?? It's something I was taught as a kid in the 80s playing rugby.
Wrap em up. Hold em up. Win the ball.

.ak · 30-07-2015 11:51pm

Less of the uncivil attitude please, and less of the "you must not play rugby"

irishbucsfan · 31-07-2015 1:10am

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You have clearly never played a game of rugby in your life. That is one of the most ignorant and stupid statements ever. What benefit would a choke tackle have in league?? It's something I was taught as a kid in the 80s playing rugby.
Wrap em up. Hold em up. Win the ball.

Firstly the choke tackle certainly did not exist in the 80s, I think you're misunderstanding exactly what it is. It's specifically aimed at taking advantage of the current interpretation of the rule about mauls going down.

Les Kiss was Ireland's defense coach when they invented this in the 6 Nations after confirming with the officials. That was in this decade. (Kiss came from rugby league which is perhaps where pickarooney's confusion comes from).

Holding players up in the tackle is NOT the same thing as a choke tackle, and to say you did it in the 80s suggests maybe you don't fully understand exactly what the term refers to

You might be interested in listening to the man himself discuss the genesis of the tactic: http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Rugby_on_Off_The_Ball/50696/

Pudsy33 · 31-07-2015 1:47am

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You have clearly never played a game of rugby in your life. That is one of the most ignorant and stupid statements ever. What benefit would a choke tackle have in league?? It's something I was taught as a kid in the 80s playing rugby.
Wrap em up. Hold em up. Win the ball.

It's league tacking technique, tackle high and wrap the arms.

gazump123 · 31-07-2015 8:40pm

awec wrote: »

If they are looking at maul collapse rules I'd like them to look at teams that collapse the maul immediately after a choke tackle. Never seems to get pinged.

I think you can collapse a maul if you get the player with ball. Not 100% sure though.

duckysauce · 03-08-2015 8:56pm

Tonga just beat the Japs 31-20 in PNC . USA v Canada next

The Lost Sheep · 03-08-2015 9:38pm

awec wrote: »

If the attacking team get it set up right then they can be impossible to stop legally. Especially since referees will focus their attention on the defending team.

Not really impossible to stop legally but it is tricky. Referees will primarily be focusing on defending side anyway....

molloyjh wrote: »

The defending team can always find ways to counter an effective line-out maul. Not engaging is always an option, and would therefore mean the kind of obstruction Hansen is alluding to at times in the interview/statement. Getting long arms in to trap the ball/ball carrier can work too (Dev has been excellent at that in the last couple of years). While that's more effective in cases where the maul is being used as a platform to launch a set play it can work in cases where they are going to the line too by preventing a grounding.

Even if a team is on the back foot in a maul it doesn't mean they are helpless either. They can try to redirect it for example similar to wheeling a scrum a small bit to cut off certain options (or just make them harder).

But at the end of the day if a team has a strength in a certain area of the game why should they not be allowed to capitalise on it? A good line-out maul requires as much practice and attention to detail as a lot of other elements of the game. If a side can pull it off effectively they should be allowed to. Just like if they can pull off a high speed counter attack they should be allowed to do that too.

+1 to all that. Totally agree.

awec wrote: »

If they are looking at maul collapse rules I'd like them to look at teams that collapse the maul immediately after a choke tackle. Never seems to get pinged.

A lot of the time those mauls collapse of their own accord and its a turnover...

thomond2006 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the choke tackle. Yes, players that get isolated from their teammates should be punished but the choke tackle just leads to a messy maul as you say and then a scrum which most of the time leads to a reset etc...

What would you do to change things? It is simply creating a maul from open play and a maul held up is a turnover. What in the laws would you change?

pickarooney wrote: »

Choke tackles are a rugby league invention though in fairness.

Theyre not really.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You have clearly never played a game of rugby in your life. That is one of the most ignorant and stupid statements ever. What benefit would a choke tackle have in league?? It's something I was taught as a kid in the 80s playing rugby.
Wrap em up. Hold em up. Win the ball.

'Choke tackles' are always used in league.. first man in makes hit and next defenders come in to start the choke.....

duckysauce · 03-08-2015 10:59pm

usa 12-3 up @ht

thomond2006 · 03-08-2015 11:36pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

What would you do to change things? It is simply creating a maul from open play and a maul held up is a turnover. What in the laws would you change?

It's a maul created by the defending team though.

duckysauce · 03-08-2015 11:47pm

3 yellows

duckysauce · 04-08-2015 12:10am

AJ MACGINTY had a class game won it for USA, great for ireland surprised not more posters here watching the match

04-08-2015 9:30am

Not arsed opening the BT/Sky saga up again, but it appears that BT have left the Freemium model behind. (meaning that their bb customers no longer have free BT Sports)

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/utilities/2015/07/sky-and-virgin-media-reveal-bt-sport-price-rise-how-to-beat-it

I'm using this as a chance to cancel my bb contract early and swap to a cheaper service, but will still be paying the higher rate for BT Sport through Sky.

Works out as ~ £1,088 per season.

****

awec · 04-08-2015 9:37am

There's no way they could sustain that. They seem to be buying rights all over the place, rumour has it they've taken La Liga from Sky.

irishbucsfan · 04-08-2015 10:21am

Deleted User wrote: »

Not arsed opening the BT/Sky saga up again, but it appears that BT have left the Freemium model behind. (meaning that their bb customers no longer have free BT Sports)

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/utilities/2015/07/sky-and-virgin-media-reveal-bt-sport-price-rise-how-to-beat-it

I'm using this as a chance to cancel my bb contract early and swap to a cheaper service, but will still be paying the higher rate for BT Sport through Sky.

Works out as ~ £1,088 per season.

****

Actually they're not leaving the freemium model behind, they're adopting a freemium model for the first time. BT Lite is free for broadband customers and then the full package is paid. It was a value-add model before.

However I think what there's a very shady element to the way they've gone about the switch, there will be loads of people who start paying without realising, I'm sure, and that's going to be a nightmare to sort out with the customers who weren't educated and ended up paying, I wouldn't be surprised if we see something along the lines of them getting ordered to provide compensation in future because of that.

I'm probably going to be doing the same as you, cancelling my broadband with them and moving to a local provider who I happen to know. I'm interested to see what they offer to stay!

thomond2006 · 04-08-2015 10:23am

/off topic

When my parents first got Sky in 2003, it was €26 per month. Now it's €36!

The_Captain · 04-08-2015 11:14am

I think the big problem with mauls is the leniancy given to the ball-holding team.

My understanding of truck and trailer is that the ball carrier should be at the front of the maul.
It seems like the ball is brought back a row or two into the maul, then if the maul stops, the ball-carrying team is almost always given more than five seconds to hide the ball in the maul and peel off on the weakest side of the defence.

Podge_irl · 04-08-2015 11:15am

The_Captain wrote: »

I think the big problem with mauls is the leniancy given to the ball-holding team.

My understanding of truck and trailer is that the ball carrier should be at the front of the maul.
It seems like the ball is brought back a row or two into the maul, then if the maul stops, the ball-carrying team is almost always given more than five seconds to hide the ball in the maul and peel off on the weakest side of the defence.

Ball doesn't have to be at the front, but it does have to start there. Once the maul is formed the attacking team can move the ball to the back. However the player holding the ball has to remain bound to the maul -> that's where the truck and trailer comes in.

.ak · 04-08-2015 11:16am

Well it's a timing thing, the team in possession must allow the carrier to be 'tackled' before passing the ball back, if they pass it back without the receiver actually being grabbed then it's just obstruction and a penalty against. So it is actually a risky thing to pull off.. But it is legal.

pickarooney · 04-08-2015 12:04pm

.ak wrote: »

Well it's a timing thing, the team in possession must allow the carrier to be 'tackled' before passing the ball back, if they pass it back without the receiver actually being grabbed then it's just obstruction and a penalty against. So it is actually a risky thing to pull off.. But it is legal.

At what point is it obstruction if the player passing it back doesn't change his course? Is it when he comes in contact with an opponent or the new ball carrier runs into him?

.ak · 04-08-2015 12:09pm

pickarooney wrote: »

At what point is it obstruction if the player passing it back doesn't change his course? Is it when he comes in contact with an opponent or the new ball carrier runs into him?

If he comes into contact with the opponent AFTER he passes the ball back.

He's also supposed to remain bound to the maul. If he's bound to the maul, and was 'tackled' before he passed the ball back, then he's legally allowed to stay at the front of the maul. It's only obstruction if he passed the ball before anyone in the defensive line tackles him.

So sometimes you see teams not engaging yeah? So if they don't engage, and say the receiver is POC, and they watch him hand the ball back, if they THEN tackle him he's obstructing.

Again, if defending teams try this tactic, they must rely on the ref being on their side of interpretation and the timing must be bang on (the attacking team may realize what they're up to and get the ball out of the maul whilst the defending team are just standing around like eejits).

awec · 04-08-2015 12:10pm

I think it's whenever he gets in the way of an opposition tackler.

The_Captain · 04-08-2015 12:27pm

It certainly seems to be one of those things with no concrete rules with a lot of interpretation from refs.

Still, we're one of the better mauling sides, so long may it continue

pickarooney · 04-08-2015 1:30pm

.ak wrote: »

So sometimes you see teams not engaging yeah? So if they don't engage, and say the receiver is POC, and they watch him hand the ball back, if they THEN tackle him he's obstructing.

How is it not simple tackling a player without the ball? With no maul or ruck formed, a player can pass/hand a ball back and continue his forward movement. Anyone tackling him at this point is in the wrong, surely? They can tackle POC first up in this instance or attempt to tackle the new ball carrier and only then might POC be considered as obstructing the tackler if he's doing anything other than moving forward.

awec · 04-08-2015 1:37pm

pickarooney wrote: »

How is it not simple tackling a player without the ball? With no maul or ruck formed, a player can pass/hand a ball back and continue his forward movement. Anyone tackling him at this point is in the wrong, surely? They can tackle POC first up in this instance or attempt to tackle the new ball carrier and only then might POC be considered as obstructing the tackler if he's doing anything other than moving forward.

The ball wouldn't be moving forward like that off a maul. What you are talking about is an accidental coming together during phases in open play.

If someone is deliberately standing in front of the ball carrier stopping a fair tackle of the ball carrier they are

1. Going to get tackled, or at least the opposition is going to run into him to make sure the referee calls it
2. Going to get pinged for obstruction.

Also if POC is running with the ball and he passes it and then deliberately runs into an opposition player he might get pinged for obstruction. If he changes direction to ensure he runs into an opposition player he'll definitely get pinged I think.

.ak · 04-08-2015 1:41pm

pickarooney wrote: »

How is it not simple tackling a player without the ball? With no maul or ruck formed, a player can pass/hand a ball back and continue his forward movement. Anyone tackling him at this point is in the wrong, surely?

Yes, that's correct. But what you're describing is open play. In a maul situation the carrier is binding himself to the maul, and therefor obscructing the possibility of the defender tackling the new ball carrier, hence why it's only legal if the ball receiver was 'tackled' first.

They can tackle POC first up in this instance or attempt to tackle the new ball carrier and only then might POC be considered as obstructing the tackler if he's doing anything other than moving forward.

Yeah, again, that only really applies in an open situation, although in that situation often the ref will ignore any unbound players being tackled, although strictly speaking you can't tackle a player not bound to the maul, it is indeed taking the man out.

Quite the same happens in rucks now adays, where players guarding the side of the ruck will be taken out, but that's illegal according to the laws, unless they're bound to the ruck or engaging in it.

pickarooney · 04-08-2015 1:51pm

There is no maul, though, as the defence has chosen not to engage. There has to be a clear intent to obstruct for it to be called - simply continuing your run forward after making a pass is not obstruction.

If the player behind POC has bound to him prior to receiving the ball back then the defence is allowed bind with POC and create a maul but again there's no obstruction. Or am I missing something obvious?

awec · 04-08-2015 1:54pm

pickarooney wrote: »

There is no maul, though, as the defence has chosen not to engage. There has to be a clear intent to obstruct for it to be called - simply continuing your run forward after making a pass is not obstruction.

If the player behind POC has bound to him prior to receiving the ball back then the defence is allowed bind with POC and create a maul but again there's no obstruction. Or am I missing something obvious?

A maul requires both teams to be engaged.

If POCs teammates bind to him and POC hands the ball back then anyone in front of the ball carrier bound or not is going to be pinged for obstruction once the defence try to tackle. Once he passes that ball back, if it's not a maul he needs to get out of the way. He can no longer just stand there.

pickarooney · 04-08-2015 1:57pm

That's a completely different scenario now... originally POC was taking the ball down and passing it back with no engagement from the defence!

awec · 04-08-2015 1:59pm

pickarooney wrote: »

That's a completely different scenario now... originally POC was taking the ball down and passing it back with no engagement from the defence!

That's the scenario I'm talking about.

Ireland lineout. POC catches ball and drops. Irish players bind, POC passes the ball back to Best at the very back of the "huddle". Opposition haven't bound. Opposition player then runs into or tackles POC, or any player in front of Best in the Irish "huddle" - penalty to opposition for obstruction.

pickarooney · 04-08-2015 2:04pm

awec wrote: »

That's the scenario I'm talking about.

Ireland lineout. POC catches ball and drops. Irish players bind, POC passes the ball back to Best at the very back of the "huddle". Opposition haven't bound. Opposition player then runs into or tackles POC, or any player in front of Best in the Irish "huddle" - penalty to opposition for obstruction.

That seems much too easy... any refs around to confirm that?

.ak · 04-08-2015 2:07pm

pickarooney wrote: »

That seems much too easy... any refs around to confirm that?

Sure we (Ireland team) do it all the time. It sounds easy, but it's not, because what if the ref doesn't agree with you, or what if one of the players panics and engages, then the defence isn't set, or what if the team reads it and dishes the ball out to the backs? The defence will get caught flat footed. What if it's near the try line (which it often is) and doesn't work because of any of the above? You've just let a try in, unopposed.

The Lost Sheep · 04-08-2015 2:09pm

pickarooney wrote: »

That seems much too easy... any refs around to confirm that?

Its correct. Look at these clips. One youtube clip the other is oval digest blog with a clip here and here

awec · 04-08-2015 2:09pm

It's not really easy, you have to be disciplined and it's fairly risky. If you get it wrong the attacking maul is going to run through you.

If POC realised what was happening and didn't pass the ball back the attacking forwards would be able to run at you and possibly form a maul on their terms a few metres closer to your line. Engaging at the lineout has the advantage of the defending team not needing to lift and being able to have all their players set to engage at the exact same time which is lower risk.

molloyjh · 04-08-2015 2:10pm

.ak wrote: »

Sure we (Ireland team) do it all the time. It sounds easy, but it's not, because what if the ref doesn't agree with you, or what if one of the players panics and engages, then the defence isn't set, or what if the team reads it and dishes the ball out to the backs? The defence will get caught flat footed. What if it's near the try line (which it often is) and doesn't work because of any of the above? You've just let a try in, unopposed.

If POC is tackled then depending on how it's done that could be viewed as joining the maul. After all you have to wrap your arms. If you went low you'd be viewed as joining and collapsing the maul if it went down. Assuming I'm following this right.

EDIT: the only way to tackle in a situation where the opposition is creating a maul is to do what we've done on the past. Do not engage and send someone around the back to tackle the ball carrier directly. If the ball isn't at the back of the attempted maul then it's truck and trailer.

awec · 04-08-2015 2:12pm

molloyjh wrote: »

If POC is tackled then depending on how it's done that could be viewed as joining the maul. After all you have to wrap your arms. If you went low you'd be viewed as joining and collapsing the maul if it went down. Assuming I'm following this right.

Only if POC has the ball I think. If POC has already passed it back then a maul can't form because as far as I know the initial bind has to involve the ball carrier.

If he's passed it back it would just be obstruction.

pickarooney · 04-08-2015 2:13pm

molloyjh wrote: »

If POC is tackled then depending on how it's done that could be viewed as joining the maul. After all you have to wrap your arms. If you went low you'd be viewed as joining and collapsing the maul if it went down. Assuming I'm following this right.

that's how I'd understand it, but I think I need pictures (no youtube at work, but I'll look at the video later, unless it's the one with the Italians where they simply tackled the ball carrier and turned it over on the ground.)

irishbucsfan · 04-08-2015 2:13pm

pickarooney wrote: »

That seems much too easy... any refs around to confirm that?

It's been done in Junior rugby for years, a team I played for did it every game and we used to communicate with the referee before the game and ensure he was clear on what we were doing.

General Rugby Discussion

Comments