Are Aussies scared to maul?

[PaarlBok]

Mauling have to start from a strong lineout. Thats the basic one. Pretty easy to combat, watch the Blues vs Bulls or the Cheetahs vs Stormers matches, counter shaft.

 

[liquor box]

Mauling have to start from a strong lineout. Thats the basic one. Pretty easy to combat, watch the Blues vs Bulls or the Cheetahs vs Stormers matches, counter shaft.

It is frustrating as an aussie fan when you know the opposition is good at mauling from a lineout yet we wont contest, it is a bit of justice in my opinion, if we wont contest a lineout then we get what we deserve.

 

[Langthorne]

not contesting line outs is crazy in my book, but I note the Tahs have been rectifying that problem in the last couple of weeks.

Back on to mauling:

I think having a couple of good maul organisers is important for attacking mauls (and I don't mean someone popping his head up at the back)

Another thing that helps with maul defence is having someone who is good at attacking the ball in a maul (yes, it is a real skill, and even moreso an attitude)

 

[Utility Back]

The Saffas resort to the maul when they are under pressure out wide and they use it well. It's a defensive ploy that can also reap offensive gain. Personally, I hate it. A contest for a ball stuck behind eight players? : Those same people who cry about the lack of contest at the breakdown under the new laws or interpretations are generally maul advocates. Consistency in logic? No fucking way.

Yeh completely with you on that one, was going to to say it along similar lines myself, but the thread didnt seem to warrant.
Really seems just legalised obstruction is all, and liked when you could a least pull it down.
Having said that, is not engaging it at all actually an option? legally that is. If there trolling up field with no one pushing against them is it legal?

But are aussies scared to maul?
Well, we all fear what wwe don't understand. :lmao:

 

[Wazimba2K]

No!

We just find it a turnover and penalty source for the opposition not to mention the energy spent!

 

[Cutter]

Re: Why can't we maul?

On another thread I said:

A few ideas on Maul defense - tackle the ball carrier before it forms, get numbers in fast to stop them gaining momentum, hit it head on with numbers (not one at a time). (a little controversial) If not too close to the line, dropping off for a moment so the maul gets spread out (great potential for tripping over or accidental offsides), and then hitting it hard again. If you are going to pull it down, do it early.

To further elaborate, maybe the low drive advocated by Bruce would work if used in small groups (2 or 3) for stopping a maul, but a more upright 'traditional' maul strikes me as being the better option for attack. It is the deception as well as the forward momentum that are important - the more successful mauls in the last few weeks have not been the long snakey ones.

Watch, for example, the Sharks try from a maul against the Reds. Narrow, powerful, able to change direction. They aren't long and snakey.

A good maul, particularly formed in they way I described above, won't fall over if you move away from it. If you hit it hard with numbers it will change direction and move away from your drive. Similarly with the low drive.

The best way to defend against these types of mauls is in waves. Hit the front guys and drive them one way. The back guys change direction to move away from the direction you have driven the front guys. Drive them the same way etc until you isolate the ball carrier. Its harder than it sounds and one of the reasons I wasnt against the pulling down the maul law. You can still maul with that rule, its just more defendable.

 

[DPK]

No!

We just find it a turnover and penalty source for the opposition not to mention the energy spent!

Is it possible Waz just has some trouble translating to English?