Our opinion is formed because our rugby is, in the main, played on drier, harder, sandy soil, which gives a premium to running with the ball and a discount to scrummaging, because in Oz rugby the studs don't move around a lot in mud - and to mauling which, except near the goal line, is less productive than running play. In the NH in winter conditions, running rugby is suicide rugby.
I hope that mauling stays in our game. It is not for the nostalgia of the olden times when, at Rugby School the sport was one long maul interrupted by going over the goal line which allowed the team that did it have a "try" to kick at goal from in line from where the ball was grounded.
That ancient practice did not outlast the 19th Century and in fact the new century saw the outlawing of what we call the maul today. The modern maul is little more than 50 years old.
Where was I? The maul should stay, firstly because of the NH conditions, and secondly, for the charter of rugby which mentions that our sport has to be for all shapes and sizes.
Law changes, especially since the start of the professional era, have had a propensity to speed up the game - provided one can ignore the stoppages caused by the abominable delays of the modern scrum which disadvantage the dominant team. Therefore any ELV, or consequent law, which tends to disadvantage the participation of larger lads, who have trouble speeding up, should be discouraged.
I understand the main objection: that it is legalised obstruction, I really do, but I would answer that if the maul is in the book it would be better to get good at it, or countering it, than angling for a law change.
And I can even counter the argument for the maul by such people as our dear friend Thomond78: that the maul generates tries, Why do we object: can't we see that? The rebuttal of the average Aussie would be that that is the very point of their objection.
And the dogs bark, and the caravan moves on.
