Bledisloe 2. Eden Park, 24th Sept 7.05pm NZT. 5.05 pm AEST, 3.05 WA

[Bullrush]

Does rugby need to do something with the maul?

For me, it's become too much of an offensive weapon. I think the ABs scored 4 tries on the weekend. 3 - including the penalty try - were from the maul. I think there were 3 in the SA v ARG game (2x penalty tries?).

I don't know if anyone has done the numbers but I wonder how many lineouts close to the line end-up as maul tries or penalties?

 

[notdeadyet]

I watched the game again last night. It was just a mess from the start. After Holloway made that great break you watch Gordon gets to the ruck and we have a 4 on 2 overlap on the blind side. Gordon doesn't even look that way and comes back open (you see Wilson throw his hands in the air) then we get isolated, Holloway commits the yellow card offence and the rest is history. That was in the first minute.

pedantic point; it was wilson that caused the 'above horizontal' angle ...

 

[RugbyReg]

pedantic point; it was wilson that caused the 'above horizontal' angle ...

Jed was the one that lifted him and dropped him. He caused the 'above horizontal' angle - its why he went to the sinbin

 

[Pfitzy]

As you say it was discipline and tackling followed by poor maul D which was surprising considering how many Brumbies are there in players and coaches.

I'm a bit surprised because it was poor, compared how effectively we stopped the Boks earlier this year. I think the ABs were a bit craftier at it, plus we had Holloway in the 2nd row instead of 6 which altered our defensive balance on mauls a little.

 

[Pfitzy]

Does rugby need to do something with the maul?

Yes. Needs to move back more to what it was, but I say up the risk factor:

Once a maul is formed by the attacking side, it must move forward within 5 seconds, or the referee will call "use it".
If the maul moves toward the attacking team's goal line, the referee will immediately call "use it".
If the ball does not emerge from the maul within 5 seconds of the referee's call, penalty against the team that took it in.

No scrums or any bullshit - if you think you're good at the maul, use it or lose it dynamically. No more static bullshit.

 

[Drew]

Great thoughts on how to improve the laws. It’s bullshit the attacking side gets three goes before using it. What inevitably happens is on the second or third go a defender infringes, then it’s a penalty, kick to corner, lineout, maul, until there’s a try or another penalty or card or whatever. I reckon if you lose momentum, use it.

 

[Froggy]

I know most don't agree, but I've said it before and I'll say it again. The rolling maul contradicts a very fundamental tenet of rugby, that an onside defender has the ability to tackle the ball carrier. The flying wedge created by NSW Country sides under Darryl Harbrecht was banned for that very reason, it didn't give a defender the opportunity to tackle the ball carrier. If you want a game where the attacking side are allowed to prevent the defenders from tackling the ball carrier, go and watch grid-iron. I am probably completely on my own here, but to me it is a blot on the game.

 

[Tomthumb]

I know most don't agree, but I've said it before and I'll say it again. The rolling maul contradicts a very fundamental tenet of rugby, that an onside defender has the ability to tackle the ball carrier. The flying wedge created by NSW Country sides under Darryl Harbrecht was banned for that very reason, it didn't give a defender the opportunity to tackle the ball carrier. If you want a game where the attacking side are allowed to prevent the defenders from tackling the ball carrier, go and watch grid-iron. I am probably completely on my own here, but to me it is a blot on the game.

You’re dead right, it’s completely illogical when compared to every other rule in rugby

 

[dru]

I know most don't agree, but I've said it before and I'll say it again. The rolling maul contradicts a very fundamental tenet of rugby, that an onside defender has the ability to tackle the ball carrier. The flying wedge created by NSW Country sides under Darryl Harbrecht was banned for that very reason, it didn't give a defender the opportunity to tackle the ball carrier. If you want a game where the attacking side are allowed to prevent the defenders from tackling the ball carrier, go and watch grid-iron. I am probably completely on my own here, but to me it is a blot on the game.

Not on your own. I actually like the maul but think the rules need to allow a contest. Don't know what those changes are but anyone in fronton the ball carrier should be considered off side imo.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Yes. Needs to move back more to what it was, but I say up the risk factor:

Once a maul is formed by the attacking side, it must move forward within 5 seconds, or the referee will call "use it".
If the maul moves toward the attacking team's goal line, the referee will immediately call "use it".
If the ball does not emerge from the maul within 5 seconds of the referee's call, penalty against the team that took it in.

No scrums or any bullshit - if you think you're good at the maul, use it or lose it dynamically. No more static bullshit.

Three massive blights/pet peeves on how the maul is officiated and allowed today:

1. Players joining the maul in front of the ball carrier - it happens every single time when the ref lowers his arms after the maul has gone the required distance. They should be made to join at the back and the ball transferred just as it is when the maul commences.

2. Slow movement sideways is given way too much latitude for maul to continue - after the first “that’s once”, as soon as it stops going forwards it should be play on. If not cleared it’s an “accidental” offside and the opposition get a scrum feed similar to running into a team mate.

3. Time wasting - When the ref says use it, that shouldn’t mean an extra couple of pushes or steps by the hooker/ball carrier, or the halfback almost holding it in there - should be done immediately or turnover.

 

[Grant NZ]

.
.
Could anyone kindly explain a couple of things I didn't understand about what happened during the game;

The Whitelock try, was it ruled that Whitelocks hand never separated from the ball, I thought it came loose and Bell grounded it, have I got that wrong? and,

I thought Retalick clearly jumped over Slippers tackle (two feet planted and hopped over), when I was playing this was a big no-no but it's hardly got a mention. Am I seeing this wrong too?

Cheers.
.
.

He didn't jump into the tackle, he has both feet on the ground when Slipper tackles him. It's just that Slipper went low and Retallick kind of trips over him. It looked bad in real time, but there was nothing wrong with the tackle or Retallick's action.

 

[Prodigy]

Three massive blights/pet peeves on how the maul is officiated and allowed today:

1. Players joining the maul in front of the ball carrier - it happens every single time when the ref lowers his arms after the maul has gone the required distance. They should be made to join at the back and the ball transferred just as it is when the maul commences.

2. Slow movement sideways is given way too much latitude for maul to continue - after the first “that’s once”, as soon as it stops going forwards it should be play on. If not cleared it’s an “accidental” offside and the opposition get a scrum feed similar to running into a team mate.

3. Time wasting - When the ref says use it, that shouldn’t mean an extra couple of pushes or steps by the hooker/ball carrier, or the halfback almost holding it in there - should be done immediately or turnover.

I can back you on these. Another peeve of mine

4. The maul from the lineout: Players who are joining the maul before the jumper is brought to the ground. Surely this is a safety issue, but also illegal, given that a maul is defined as:
A maul occurs when a player with the ball goes into contact with a defender, and while both players remain on their feet, at least one more player from the attacking team joins the contact. At this point a maul is formed.

On point 1 above, it really gets me that International Referees get this wrong. The law says that arriving players must bind onto the hindmost player and the ball with the ball must not slide or move backwards in a maul, which when backs join a maul and the hooker score, it must happen.

 

[Dan54]

Three massive blights/pet peeves on how the maul is officiated and allowed today:

on as it stops going forwards it should be play on. If not cleared it’s an “accidental” offside and the opposition get a scrum feed similar to running into a team mate.

3. Time wasting - When the ref says use it, that shouldn’t mean an extra couple of pushes or steps by the hooker/ball carrier, or the halfback almost holding it in there - should be done immediately or turnover.

I think if a ref calls use it, you till need to be able to hold it for a few seconds or isn't it just the ref telling defence they can come up and tackle the 9? I like 9s having to play ball quicker, and thought a ref could call use it and count down 3-2-1 but then realised it just giving opposition a countdown to come up.

 

[Grant NZ]

On point 1 above, it really gets me that International Referees get this wrong. The law says that arriving players must bind onto the hindmost player and the ball with the ball must not slide or move backwards in a maul, which when backs join a maul and the hooker score, it must happen.

The ball carrier, not the ball, is not permitted to slide back in the maul. There’s no issue with the ball being transferred through the hands to the rear.

 

[stillmissit]

Good point. Our support play, and even kick-chase has been below par for years now.

I just don't get it. It's like they are surprised every time a break is made.

Viking, I'm going to put this out there and expect to get shouted down but I think the lack of support for the runner is partly or wholly due to all our players being influenced by RL. It has struck me over the years that a guy makes a break and there is a long thought process and then the chase begins.

It is an instinctual thing and we lack the instinct.

BTW Most senior Aussie union players watch a lot of league.

 

[Tomthumb]

The ball carrier, not the ball, is not permitted to slide back in the maul. There’s no issue with the ball being transferred through the hands to the rear.

The issue is for years teams were taught to have the first guy on the ball slide to the back of the maul and have everyone bind in front of him

 

[Viking]

I think if a ref calls use it, you till need to be able to hold it for a few seconds or isn't it just the ref telling defence they can come up and tackle the 9? I like 9s having to play ball quicker, and thought a ref could call use it and count down 3-2-1 but then realised it just giving opposition a countdown to come up.

Yeh i think the refs should call 'use it', then call 'balls out' after a 3-5 secs which allows opposition to come up. The ref should count 3 seconds or so in his head. I like the idea this isn't exactly 3 seconds and a bit of differential between rucks and refs to stop opposition teams just timing it and rushing up too quickly.

 

[Prodigy]

The ball carrier, not the ball, is not permitted to slide back in the maul. There’s no issue with the ball being transferred through the hands to the rear.

I agree, but if a back joins the maul, he has to bind to the hindmost player and the ball transferred back. How does the hooker still score the try?

 

[John S]

I agree, but if a back joins the maul, he has to bind to the hindmost player and the ball transferred back. How does the hooker still score the try?

Magic? Dark Arts?

 

[Brumby Runner]

I agree, but if a back joins the maul, he has to bind to the hindmost player and the ball transferred back. How does the hooker still score the try?

Presumably only by disengaging and then re-engaging at the back. Don't think I've ever seen that happen.