Rolling maul dead under ELVs?

[PaarlBok]

You lot will be amused if they dont allow binding, what you lot call lifting, Bekker & Matfield would have a field day in the lineouts.

Nick off course you'll still find teams trying to maul and be successfull with it. It all go to the counter numbers. Saw a great maul by the Stormers of all people against the Sharks on the weekend.

They should have leave this one as it was and took teams like the Bulls & Cheetahs best weapons.

 

[Thomond78]

As Lee will confirm, you used be allowed collapse mauls back in the day.

Then Silver, in England, did a fantastic study on the incidence of catastrophic spinal injury in rugby, and showed that the scrum and the maul were the two most dangerous areas; both from collapses.

In the 1984-5 season, led largely by Australia let it be noted, they changed both. Collapsing the maul was banned; and the "crouch, touch, pause, engage" engage sequence was introduced, as well as the under-19 scrum variations that subsequently spread from Australia world-wide.

The result was pretty stunning; the maul went from being the second most dangerous contact area to being the safest.

Now, when you get that sort of result, it's lunacy to change it. Not least because if it's the safest contact area, anything you substitute for a non-collapsed maul is more dangerous; as well as that, you're adding back in a known risk.

Whatever you do, this adds risk of injury to the game. And that's a bad idea.

Nor does it work to get the game moving, as I've seen six months of forwards clogging up where the gaps in a defensive line would otherwise be.

It's a bad idea.

Incidentally, they didn't look in any depth the safety aspects; that's not just me, that's a quotation from Steve Tew after the vote on it last May - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10507681 http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/...-on-elvs/2008/05/02/1209235154284.html?page=2

 

[Blue]

PS: Blue

After Oz won the 1991 RWC and went to the RSA the following year, the Wallabies were astounded by how much the SAffers were lifted in the lineouts compared to the rest of the rugby world from which SAffer players had been isolated.

They were also bemused after playing a warm up game, seeing SAffer players queuing up for their "vitamin" shots.

Ah Ok now I remember the debate about the lineout. In fact in 1989 we played trials in the University comp that allowed lifting. The jumpers loved it and the props hated it.

As for the injections, who knows. I have heard plenty people say things like those Saffers, they can't get that big without injecting stuff. These people generally haven't travelled in SA much....

In 1991 who the hell knows what was going on? There were few controls and I suspect we would all be horrified if we knew what was really happening. Before that we had been isolated and that would suggest that it was a free for all. I stand to be corrected but I am under the impression that there wasn't much testing happening up to that point anywhere else.

In the mid 90's it got interesting as testing became more prevelant and people like Hattingh and Tune got caught.

I know for a fact that after the Hatting incident the Bulls adminitrators crapped themselves and implemented a testing regime (which could be read as they ended their drug administration regime We'll never know. I had two school friends who went on to play many games for the Bulls in the early 90's and speaking to them years later they knew of one or two guys who took drugs but it was frowned on by the players. In 1993 a Bulls prop by the name of Jan Lock died of cardiac failure. I was at the game and the rumors started that same day. I doubt the guys were lying and it wasn't prevelant but again who knows.) On the balance of it I think the SA drug taking rumours were wildly exaggarated. Us Dutchmen are generally big and angry enough but some unfortunately wanted to be even bigger and angrier. I don't deny that but I don't think it was used any more than here in Aus or anywhere else for that matter.

Now where were we? Oh, lineouts. Yes we lifted first. All I can say is thank god we did. Imagine we still had the same mess at the lineout but it sounds like Noddy misses it.

 

[PaarlBok]

Trust me I hate the Elvs at first but can see the differense of it in the first year specially at our schoolboy level. Myself is sure you'll see this in our rugby in future when the current ELV crop get to senior status. But the collapsing maul, sorry there I disagree strongly. Man you have to use force to counter maul not pulling down like sussies.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

At the end of the day we are all going to be caught between enjoyable rugby and safe rugby.
I for one long for the 'olden days' laws of scrum and maul - the game was utmost fun, a real contest for the ball but as apparently the statistics show it was unsafe (I certainly do not recall too many serious injusies though - certainly no more than now - but I maybe wrong - rarily but maybe).
Rugby is a contested game - it is the one prime area which sets it apart from league and I for one see many of the law changes in the ELV's as getting back to the contest for the ball.
The lineouts are great - as Lee mentioned, back before lifting (pre-gripping as defined in the law book) they were a dog's breakfast.
Mauls were great to play and watch and we must now get the laws right to firstly allow a contest for the ball at the maul and to make the game more appealing than it has become at the maul over the past 15 or so years.

Really, if a player is going to collapse a maul the result as I see it would be a benefit to the opposition.
If his team has the ball it will force them to play it or face the possibility of losing posession - so not a good option overall and if the opposition has the ball secured the collapsing would allow them to play it and may in fact make the presentation of the ball better to the opposition No9 - again not a good option.
Lets all wait until the season is over and have a look at exactly what is the wash up on the collapsing issue.
I have a feeling eventually it will either be ditched or universally accepted - a more each way bet you cannot get - but I think we will see all our fears unfounded and it will stay. - remember the furore when lifting was originally allowed in the early 90's.

 

[Blue]

As for the argument that the game is about competition for the ball it shows the different perspectives Saffers and Aussies have on the game. Here in Aus the argument of ball competition is a compelling one becuase there is always comparison to league (and the need to differentiate).

In SA its not just about competing for the ball but also about the territory game and a match of physical strength. Hence the emphasis on the mall. This lies at the very core of the game. As forwards we were taught to scrum, maul and clear our rucks before anything else. Now in Aus that is seen as archaic but understand the perspective South Africans have becuase of the type of game we were taught.

For me the jury is still out but I know that I liked good malls.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

For me the jury is still out but I know that I liked good malls.

As any forward worth his salt should do - oh (lament the good ol' days)

When the ELV's were first introduced in games in Stellenbosch, the aim was;
a: keep the game for all sizes of players
b: improve the contestability of the ball
c: improve/increase ball in play time
d: tidy up some ugly situations.

When the ELV's were then extended to the Aussie Premier Grade comp the same criteria were used and it is interesting to note that the initial recommendations for the ELV's came from the IRB after extensive analysis and deliberation, so any talk of the ELV's being a SH initiative is utter bollocks.
I think it was about 2006 or 2007 that the first under 19 use of the ELV's was at the annual Barry Honan Tournament at TSS and both Rod MacQueen and Paddy O'Brien did a presentation to us referees and the same criteria were in place -
a: keep the game for all sizes of players
b: improve the contestability of the ball
c: improve/increase ball in play time
d: tidy up some ugly situations.

Let me tell you, the players loved every ELV trialled and the only one not used at that tournament was the collapsing maul one. We even had schools from the UK competing and their enthusiasm for the ELV's was unamimous.
Just goes to show what a well planned media campaign by self interest parties can accomplish.
I wonder if Steven Jones has ever played or experienced the ELV's personally because most players and referees embrace them.

 

[Thomond78]

I can tell you that the almost universal agreement here on the global ELVs, from refs and players, is: five metres on scrums, great, and we love seeing back-row moves back, so well done on that one; the 22 one, nice idea, but on balance, it doesn't work (but, no question, it was well worth trying out - initially I was in favour of it); lineout numbers, we like, but it needs mauls; the maul one, a fucking disaster, pure and simple.

Bring back mauls, and keep the crack-down on going off the feet. It's worked a cracker up here, and we are finally starting to see the return of proper rucking, as teams realise it's the best ball bar none to crack a rush defence.

Then, simply, just all to the maul law the following: "No player in a maul may be between the ball-carrier and the opposition. Penalty; scrum to the team not in possession." Ends the jockey at the back, proper mauls back, and off we go.

Now, was that so very hard? :nta:

 

[Lee Grant]

Then, simply, just all to the maul law the following: "No player in a maul may be between the ball-carrier and the opposition. Penalty; scrum to the team not in possession." Ends the jockey at the back, proper mauls back, and off we go.

Wow that's an interesting idea I hadn't thought about before.

Good one T78.

I forget what the old maul laws were 50 years ago. I don't think that we even called them mauls and there were bloody few of them - more happenings than a deliberate manoeuvre - but I wouldn't be surprised if the jockey at the back was penalised.

We were never coached it at school or club as was rucking (moving the ball up the park in a loose scrum thingy with the ball on the ground).

Someone should send an e-mail to Paul Dodson to get a history of the maul from him.

 

[Thomond78]

Ever so slight tweak of that, on reflection:

"No member of the team in possession of the ball in a maul may be in that maul between the ball-carrier in that maul and the opposition goal-line. Penalty: scrum to the team not in possession of the ball."

Think that covers it. And what's more, I'm pretty sure it can be brought in as a protocol under the existing laws.

Anyone up for an ELV we actually want as players and fans?

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Then, simply, just all to the maul law the following: "No player in a maul may be between the ball-carrier and the opposition. Penalty; scrum to the team not in possession." Ends the jockey at the back, proper mauls back, and off we go.
Now, was that so very hard? :nta:

Sorry - consider this,
Team A take the ball and form a maul with the lead player carrying the ball (so far so good accoring to you). The team A players then move the ball from the middle of the maul to the back of the maul to be presented to the halfback.
Now accoring to your idea, once that occurs all the players from team a are to be penalised -
how is that equitable???

 

[formeropenside]

Then, simply, just all to the maul law the following: "No player in a maul may be between the ball-carrier and the opposition. Penalty; scrum to the team not in possession." Ends the jockey at the back, proper mauls back, and off we go.
Now, was that so very hard? :nta:

Sorry - consider this,
Team A take the ball and form a maul with the lead player carrying the ball (so far so good accoring to you). The team A players then move the ball from the middle of the maul to the back of the maul to be presented to the halfback.
Now accoring to your idea, once that occurs all the players from team a are to be penalised -
how is that equitable???

When the time comes to get it out, the player holding the ball must lay it on the ground and it can then be rucked over/back to the halfback for clearance.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

let me think about that - but initially I feel we are getting too far away from the concept and intention of mauling as we (well most of us) so fondly remember and crave.

There is defensive option available in the maul that I have only seen used once.
When a maul forms and the ball is carried by any player behind the leading player of a team, the team not in posession disengages en-masse and then re-engages what was the maul ( you cannot have a maul without opposition binding one of your players) but is now a group of opposition players all bound to each other AND in front of the ball carrier,
They are all immediately OFF SIDE

 

[RugbyReg]

Then, simply, just all to the maul law the following: "No player in a maul may be between the ball-carrier and the opposition. Penalty; scrum to the team not in possession." Ends the jockey at the back, proper mauls back, and off we go.
Now, was that so very hard? :nta:

Sorry - consider this,
Team A take the ball and form a maul with the lead player carrying the ball (so far so good accoring to you). The team A players then move the ball from the middle of the maul to the back of the maul to be presented to the halfback.
Now accoring to your idea, once that occurs all the players from team a are to be penalised -
how is that equitable???

When the time comes to get it out, the player holding the ball must lay it on the ground and it can then be rucked over/back to the halfback for clearance.

or simply played between the legs to someone acting as the scrum half. We could call them the dummy half.

 

[cyclopath]

I can tell you that the almost universal agreement here on the global ELVs, from refs and players, is: five metres on scrums, great, and we love seeing back-row moves back, so well done on that one; the 22 one, nice idea, but on balance, it doesn't work (but, no question, it was well worth trying out - initially I was in favour of it); lineout numbers, we like, but it needs mauls; the maul one, a fucking disaster, pure and simple.

Bring back mauls, and keep the crack-down on going off the feet. It's worked a cracker up here, and we are finally starting to see the return of proper rucking, as teams realise it's the best ball bar none to crack a rush defence.

Then, simply, just all to the maul law the following: "No player in a maul may be between the ball-carrier and the opposition. Penalty; scrum to the team not in possession." Ends the jockey at the back, proper mauls back, and off we go.

Now, was that so very hard? :nta:

And herein one of the major problems again this year - refs here seem to be slack on this (only 1 round into S14 I know) and it would be a shame if a dichotomy developed on this issue between north and south. The flopping down of both attacking and defending players at the breakdown is a blight.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I can tell you that the almost universal agreement here on the global ELVs, from refs and players, is: five metres on scrums, great, and we love seeing back-row moves back, so well done on that one; the 22 one, nice idea, but on balance, it doesn't work (but, no question, it was well worth trying out - initially I was in favour of it); lineout numbers, we like, but it needs mauls; the maul one, a fucking disaster, pure and simple.

Bring back mauls, and keep the crack-down on going off the feet. It's worked a cracker up here, and we are finally starting to see the return of proper rucking, as teams realise it's the best ball bar none to crack a rush defence.

Then, simply, just all to the maul law the following: "No player in a maul may be between the ball-carrier and the opposition. Penalty; scrum to the team not in possession." Ends the jockey at the back, proper mauls back, and off we go.

Now, was that so very hard? :nta:

And herein one of the major problems again this year - refs here seem to be slack on this (only 1 round into S14 I know) and it would be a shame if a dichotomy developed on this issue between north and south. The flopping down of both attacking and defending players at the breakdown is a blight.

Here her - absolutely agree with you.
Refs are taught to police this but it seems to be the biggest blight at the breakdown.
Shame refs shame

 

[Pfitzy]

or simply played between the legs to someone acting as the scrum half. We could call them the dummy half.

And only 6 mauls in a row or you lose possession.

Nice idea Oirish, but it still wouldn't work out - what you're describing will result in more flying wedges; something that isn't policed in the game at this point either.

 

[en_force_er]

There is defensive option available in the maul that I have only seen used once.
When a maul forms and the ball is carried by any player behind the leading player of a team, the team not in posession disengages en-masse and then re-engages what was the maul ( you cannot have a maul without opposition binding one of your players) but is now a group of opposition players all bound to each other AND in front of the ball carrier,
They are all immediately OFF SIDE

that is crafty. massive gamble though, refs arent good at making good choices on situations they have next encountered before.
im tempted to talk to my team about this but if it failed the boys wouldnt be too happy.

 

[Thomond78]

or simply played between the legs to someone acting as the scrum half. We could call them the dummy half.

And only 6 mauls in a row or you lose possession.

Nice idea Oirish, but it still wouldn't work out - what you're describing will result in more flying wedges; something that isn't policed in the game at this point either.

Flying wedges are illegal, so that's covered; and they aren't mauls, as there's not a member of the opposition bound in.

If you don't have a member of the opposition in contact with the ball carrier, no maul. End of. So they can't drive forward and, under my proposal, can't smuggle it back (it's not a maul, it's not a ruck, so the open play offside applies, so any players ahead of the ball must retreat behind it or be penalised). They have to, simply, get out of there and get on with the game.


RW, I take your point, but I don't see a problem. As FOS has indicated, you can put it on the ground and ruck over it.

However, if you want, we can have a little exception in there, so the offside in the maul law would now read:

1. No member of the team in possession of the ball in a maul may be in that maul between the ball-carrier in that maul and the opposition goal-line. Penalty: scrum to the team not in possession of the ball.
2. Players in a maul may pass the ball backwards to the rear of a maul in order for the ball to leave the maul. The ball must then leave the maul immediately and may not be held at the back of the maul. If the ball does not immediately leave the maul, the normal offside law applies Penalty: Penalty Kick.

That way, you can pass it back to get it out, but you've got about two seconds to get rid of it once it's at the back, or else everyone in front of the ball is offside and must retreat immediately. That sort it out for you?

RW's defensive one is risky, but there's an easier way to do it; just don't engage first day. It's not a maul, so it's open play, so the open play offside line applies. What you can then do is nip around the back where they're trying to protect the ball and take it. They can't stop you, because they're offside. Italy have done this successfully in internationals in the past.

Unfortunately, competent refs with a pair of plums are a rare commodity at the moment.

 

[Cutter]

Impossible to referee. How does the ref decide who has the ball? How does the ref decide how many steps each player can take when passing it back? That's why none of us were chosen for the ELVs group.

If mauls stop, it should be a scrum to the opposition. If Neil Back isnt properly bound, it should be a penalty and a team warning for obstruction. Second time penalty.

Pulling down wont kill the maul, it just means that it will change and evolve. Not necessarily a bad thing.