Mauls?

[Niegs]

I'm for the defenders here. It's allowed and refs tend to fix themselves on defenders... while completely ignoring attackers blocking, joining ahead of tail, tail breaking off and re-attaching, truck and trailer, etc.

[sockwithaticket]

Great discipline from the defenders there. I recall seeing this a few times at the pro level quite a while ago, then it just went away as a tactic.

[Tichtheid]

That looks like a 1st of April thing

[Enzedder]

I put up this quote over the road - from Justin Marshall

'It's pissing me off': Ex-All Black rips Kiwi Super Rugby teams over 'predictable' rugby

By Sam Smith

Former All Black Justin Marshall has ripped into the Highlanders and the wider Super Rugby Pacific competition as the game’s latest trend becomes overbearingly ‘predictable’.

Speaking on SENZ’s The Saturday Session radio show, the 81-Test halfback lamented the state of the game where teams are scoring endlessly from the rolling maul.

Marshall said that the laws of the game restrict defending the maul, so if the attacking team gets it right it is impossible to stop.

“I was actually watching the game last night and I was thinking to myself, how have teams become so inefficient at combating the rolling maul,” he said on SENZ’s The Saturday Session.

“I would love to see a stat for it, but at the moment teams are so positive that if they can get the ball into the sort of 5-10 metre area and get their rolling mauls set, the opposition can’t combat it.”

The Blues and Moana Pasifika both scored plenty of tries from the maul in their two clashes last week, with hooker Kurt Eklund cashing in at the back.

Eklund has become one the Blues most prolific try scorers ever, with a strike rate better than Caleb Clarke and Mark Telea.

“Hookers are the leading try scorers at the moment, more than outside backs. Andrew Makalio got one last night, Rhys Marshall got two, and I think Kurt Eklund’s one of the Blues’ leading try scorers ever.

“It’s not just against Moana Pasifika. Every single team seems to be going into that zone knowing that the laws of the game or whatever it might be restricts the opposition, if you get really well set, from shutting down a driving maul.

The former Crusader said that the ‘sack’ has gone missing due to laws that protect the jumper too much. The game as a result is ‘predictable’ and ‘horrific thing to watch’.

“No one seems to be sacking the lineouts anymore, so I wonder whether or not they can’t get access to the jumper to sack it because of the laws and the way they’re protected and blocked, but whatever it is, to be honest, it’s pissing me off.

“It’s really predictable rugby. When it gets down to that zone, it’s frustrating to watch a team like Moana Pasifika, who are really competitive right across the board but the opposition score four tries (against them) from rolling mauls, and that’s the game.

“That’s not really playing rugby is it. It’s a horrific thing to watch, because there’s nothing dynamic, nothing entertaining about it.”

[Niegs]

And I responded to that thread with something technical, but I agree. It's sad that NZ is joining the rest of the world with pods, pull back plays more than a variety, and going for the lineout try as much as possible (but it's understandable given the way the lineout is refereed).

[Guy Smiley]

Marshall's just a windbag.

Last year we had mass moaning about the ABs not playing the forward biased strength game and getting monstered... with good reason.

Now we're seeing Super teams adopt part of that power based game and develop their set piece as part of the attacking structure... and he's whinging.

He's always whinging. He won't fucking shut up.

[Kiwias]

Why doesn't the ref just tell them to use it or lose it, as in a normal maul? Or blow them for time wasting?

[Guy Smiley]

Why doesn't the ref just tell them to use it or lose it, as in a normal maul? Or blow them for time wasting?

You're referring to the clip in the OP, Kiwias?

I thought the same thing when I saw it. Terrible reffing... the ball's available, play it. It's not a maul as no-one is contesting. They either play the thing or they're obstructing and off side.

[Kiwias]

Why doesn't the ref just tell them to use it or lose it, as in a normal maul? Or blow them for time wasting?

You're referring to the clip in the OP, Kiwias?

I thought the same thing when I saw it. Terrible reffing... the ball's available, play it. It's not a maul as no-one is contesting. They either play the thing or they're obstructing and off side.

Yep, the OP clip. The referee was totally passive.

[Gumboot]

Why doesn't the ref just tell them to use it or lose it, as in a normal maul? Or blow them for time wasting?

You're referring to the clip in the OP, Kiwias?

I thought the same thing when I saw it. Terrible reffing... the ball's available, play it. It's not a maul as no-one is contesting. They either play the thing or they're obstructing and off side.

Yep, the OP clip. The referee was totally passive.

Everyone was totally passive tbf.

But all these mauls...I fucking hate 'em. They're a blight on the game imo.

[Enzedder]

Why doesn't the ref just tell them to use it or lose it, as in a normal maul? Or blow them for time wasting?

You're referring to the clip in the OP, Kiwias?

I thought the same thing when I saw it. Terrible reffing... the ball's available, play it. It's not a maul as no-one is contesting. They either play the thing or they're obstructing and off side.

It was general play.

[Gumboot]

Why doesn't the ref just tell them to use it or lose it, as in a normal maul? Or blow them for time wasting?

You're referring to the clip in the OP, Kiwias?

I thought the same thing when I saw it. Terrible reffing... the ball's available, play it. It's not a maul as no-one is contesting. They either play the thing or they're obstructing and off side.

It was general play.

That's what I thought, too. A maul isn't a set piece, as one side has already won the ball.

[derriz]

None of that makes any sense to me. Did the ref mistakenly call maul or something? If he did then, why are the attackers just shuffling sideways? If you're going to shuffle, then shuffle forwards? If he didn't (it's clearly not a maul) then surely a defender is entitled to just run in and bring the ball carrier to the ground by tacking them around the legs - any of the other "attacking" players getting in the way would be obstructing? Looks like everyone - ref included - had a collective brain-fart and didn't know what was going on.

[Kiwias]

Why doesn't the ref just tell them to use it or lose it, as in a normal maul? Or blow them for time wasting?

You're referring to the clip in the OP, Kiwias?

I thought the same thing when I saw it. Terrible reffing... the ball's available, play it. It's not a maul as no-one is contesting. They either play the thing or they're obstructing and off side.

It was general play.

So there was no offside line and the defenders could tackle the ball carrier, and any of the attacking team in front of him would be obstructing play.

[Uncle fester]

None of that makes any sense to me. Did the ref mistakenly call maul or something? If he did then, why are the attackers just shuffling sideways? If you're going to shuffle, then shuffle forwards?

They can't. Prebinding rule (aka flying wedge) applies then.

If he didn't (it's clearly not a maul) then surely a defender is entitled to just run in and bring the ball carrier to the ground by tacking them around the legs - any of the other "attacking" players getting in the way would be obstructing? Looks like everyone - ref included - had a collective brain-fart and didn't know what was going on.

Ball is at the front of the maul. They were waiting for opposition to make contact before transferring it to the back. If any defender makes contact, they can transfer to back and the rolling maul can start to move.

Ref didn't call "use it" because it's open play. Reckon that one needs to be changed in law.

[Mahoney]

I think it’s actually still a lineout, so there is a defensive offside line - until the ball moves off the line of the lineout and the ref calls lineout over.

But I do agree that it looks like illegal prebinding.

[Mahoney]

It was general play.

That's what I thought, too. A maul isn't a set piece, as one side has already won the ball.

I think (hope!) Enzedder meant it was not a maul. A maul is not general play, the laws are quite clear on this, there is a defensive offside line and laws about how to enter the maul; and one side has not already won the ball until the maul ends. The opposition can in theory (and sometimes do) come through the middle of the maul and win it.

[Lobby]

It was general play.

That's what I thought, too. A maul isn't a set piece, as one side has already won the ball.

I think (hope!) Enzedder meant it was not a maul. A maul is not general play, the laws are quite clear on this, there is a defensive offside line and laws about how to enter the maul; and one side has not already won the ball until the maul ends. The opposition can in theory (and sometimes do) come through the middle of the maul and win it.

It’s not a maul because there are no defenders involved. You need players from both teams to be bound on for it to be a maul. As it’s not a maul, its either general play, or as you said before, still a line out (until they move forward).

[Mahoney]

Yes, I know. I suspect you misread my post.

[Gumboot]

It was general play.

That's what I thought, too. A maul isn't a set piece, as one side has already won the ball.

I think (hope!) Enzedder meant it was not a maul. A maul is not general play, the laws are quite clear on this, there is a defensive offside line and laws about how to enter the maul; and one side has not already won the ball until the maul ends. The opposition can in theory (and sometimes do) come through the middle of the maul and win it.

Cheers, I stand corrected.

[MungoMan]

That's what I thought, too. A maul isn't a set piece, as one side has already won the ball.

I think (hope!) Enzedder meant it was not a maul. A maul is not general play, the laws are quite clear on this, there is a defensive offside line and laws about how to enter the maul; and one side has not already won the ball until the maul ends. The opposition can in theory (and sometimes do) come through the middle of the maul and win it.

Cheers, I stand corrected.

The term you are both looking for (possibly without knowing) is open play, not general play.

[derriz]

None of that makes any sense to me. Did the ref mistakenly call maul or something? If he did then, why are the attackers just shuffling sideways? If you're going to shuffle, then shuffle forwards?

They can't. Prebinding rule (aka flying wedge) applies then.

You sure about that? I googled around and the situation seems to be covered here - https://www.ospreysrugby.com/news/ask-ref-flying-wedge - and it quotes laws that state a "flying wedge" has to give the defenders no chance to attack the ball carrier so if it starts stationary, then it's not a flying wedge. Not that that's definitive or anything but it seems at least ambiguous to me

If he didn't (it's clearly not a maul) then surely a defender is entitled to just run in and bring the ball carrier to the ground by tacking them around the legs - any of the other "attacking" players getting in the way would be obstructing? Looks like everyone - ref included - had a collective brain-fart and didn't know what was going on.

Ball is at the front of the maul. They were waiting for opposition to make contact before transferring it to the back. If any defender makes contact, they can transfer to back and the rolling maul can start to move.

Ref didn't call "use it" because it's open play. Reckon that one needs to be changed in law.

Yeah but I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with that - the opposition/defenders have a clear opportunity to tackle the ball carrier and it would seem like a fairly tricky manoeuvre for the attacking team to pull off - wouldn't they have to wait for the tackle before they transfer otherwise it'd be obstruction? Of course the ref would need to be wise to what was going on and could easily not call it in the heat of the moment. Maybe on the balance of probabilities, the defenders didn't want to risk it.

[Uncle fester]

You're only allowed to have 1 teammate pre-bind or pre-match before contact and they also have to abide by all laws relating to tackle area.
https://www.irishrugby.ie/2021/08/23/wo ... in-effect/
Your article above is from 2010 so it's old enough guidance on the matter.

Defenders options were to 1. rush in and try to get the ball carrier at the front to the ground but the instant they make contact, the maul is formed and offside lines are set.

2. Wait and see if the attacking team would move first and transfer the ball to the back, thus causing a possible obstruction situation or allow the defenders to go straight around the back and tackle the lad with the ball (see Rhys Ruddock v South Africa some years back).

3. Hold tight which is what they did do.

[Blackmac]

I wish people would stop referring to it as a 'rolling maul' because it certainly isn't and that is the whole bloody problem.