Super Rugby AU Round 5 Brumbies v Reds Saturday 7.15 GIO Stadium

[The Nomad]

^ Wayne Smith's article in today's Australian covers the topic of rolling mauls quite well .

Basically whilst NH nations are controlling WR (World Rugby) , it's highly unlikely rules regarding the rolling maul will change, so lets get Lord Laurie and McKellar in as specialist coaches for the Wallabies and make it such a weapon for us that WR (World Rugby) change the rules.

 

[qwerty51]

Rolling maul isn't even boring. Who gives a shit.

 

[Number 7]

Rolling maul isn't even boring. Who gives a shit.

It gets boring when it is used as often as the Brumbies use it.

 

[Derpus]

Rolling maul isn't even boring. Who gives a shit.

 

[Slim 293]

It gets boring when it is used as often as the Brumbies use it.

The Brumbies have largely played an expansive attacking game this year.......... they were 2nd behind the Sharks in most tries scored beginning outside the opposition 22m.

But their attack wasn’t as effective on the weekend - they played too lateral and the Reds defence was very good, so they used their maul.

You do what you have to do to win, and good teams maul effectively - just ask the Crusaders who probably scored more tries from it earlier in the year than anyone.

 

[dru]

The Brumbies have largely played an expansive attacking game this year.... they were 2nd behind the Sharks in most tries scored beginning outside the opposition 22m.

But their attack wasn’t as effective on the weekend - they played too lateral and the Reds defence was very good, so they used their maul.

You do what you have to do to win, and good teams maul effectively - just ask the Crusaders who probably scored more tries from it earlier in the year than anyone.

Personally I'd rather watch a competitive expansive entertaining team that misses by a bit, than a boring winning team. But probably we need to define boring.

The Brumbies are not boring. Scrums are not boring. Mauls are not boring. They are rugby.

Reds managed to kill a couple of Brumby rolling mauls, I was roaring with enthusiasm. Not so much when we didn't manage to kill them.

I don't mind the idea of tinkering with the maul rules to de-fang them a bit, but they are not boring.

You might as well say that the rush defense, that the Reds have finally started managing, is boring. Is it? Tough! I think it's a thing of beauty. And hell yes, it is designed to squash expansive play by the opposition. Lovely.

 

[Derpus]

Personally, i think the maul is characteristically different to other aspects of rugby which others find boring (like scrums, rucks etc). It removes competition for the ball and is incredibly hard to defend against even by a team with a very good maul defense.

But as you say, use whatever tool available to win. The Wallabies would be wise to try and emulate the Brumbies mauling abilities.

 

[dru]

Personally, i think the maul is characteristically different to other aspects of rugby which others find boring (like scrums, rucks etc). It removes competition for the ball and is incredibly hard to defend against even by a team with a very good maul defense.

But as you say, use whatever tool available to win. The Wallabies would be wise to try and emulate the Brumbies mauling abilities.

Now this is an argument I think with legs. Happy with a technical argument, less so when the argument is "boredom".

 

[Derpus]

Now this is an argument I think with legs. Happy with a technical argument, less so when the argument is "boredom".

Boredom is the consequence.

 

[dru]

Boredom is the consequence.

Now you are back to opinion.

 

[Derpus]

Now you are back to opinion.

ya

 

[Up the Guts]

I don’t mind a good maul. That Saffa maul in the quarter final against Japan that rolled about 40m down the park was awesome. We only really have discussions about mauls in Brumbies’ threads because they’re so damn good at it. There’s no issue in NZ games or non-Brumbies fixtures.

The Tahs managed to shut down the Brumbies maul for the most part. It’s just hard to stomach for the Reds because they were good in all other areas of defence. I’m happy to crowdfund McKellar and Fisher to work as Wallabies’ maul specialists. Imagine if we could basically bank 5 points for a 5m line out in a test match.

Should also add that it is, however, really frustrating when a defensive players swims his way through the middle but gets spat out on the side a bit and gets told to stay out of it when he actually entered legally.

 

[cyclopath]

I don’t mind a good maul. That Saffa maul in the quarter final against Japan that rolled about 40m down the park was awesome. We only really have discussions about mauls in Brumbies’ threads because they’re so damn good at it. There’s no issue in NZ games or non-Brumbies fixtures.

The Tahs managed to shut down the Brumbies maul for the most part. It’s just hard to stomach for the Reds because they were good in all other areas of defence. I’m happy to crowdfund McKellar and Fisher to work as Wallabies’ maul specialists. Imagine if we could basically bank 5 points for a 5m line out in a test match.

Should also add that it is, however, really frustrating when a defensive players swims his way through the middle but gets spat out on the side a bit and gets told to stay out of it when he actually entered legally.

My main issue with mauls is in the application of the laws around them. These sort of things, plus the variable enforcing of the ball carrier makes them an unfair lottery a lot of the time. Players still routinely join in front (illegal) and ball carriers "swim" back (illegal) and often we see pods separate and basically act as a flying wedge (look it up if you're not old like me!!). As a game built on the fundamental law of contested possession at tackle, ruck, maul, lineout and scrum, it goes against the grain sometimes.
Of course, if teams are good at it all power to them. Crazy to not use such a weapon. I might add, Aus rugby has lost a few really good "anti-maulers" in recent years, such as Arnold and Skelton.

 

[Up the Guts]

Agree, the rulings are really poor. In the other match, Gardner gave out a truck and trailer penalty which you could seemingly give out every match. To deal with the refereeing issues, they really need to announce they’re going to be targeting them and penalise them consistently.

 

[Number 7]

The Brumbies have largely played an expansive attacking game this year.... they were 2nd behind the Sharks in most tries scored beginning outside the opposition 22m.

Sorta. Here's some other stats for you: pre-covid Brumbies scored 5 of their 31 tries from mauls. Post-covid they have scored 7/16 tries from mauls. I agree that pre-covid they scored some good tries pre-covid (Kata, Simone, Banks and Wright were all prominent) but post-covid not so much. It feels to me that there is an over-reliance on the tactic by the Brumbies at the moment. I am excited by what Banks, Kata and Wright might bring to the game but the Brumbies tactics at the moment isnt allowing it to happen.

My main issue with mauls is in the application of the laws around them.

Yes, this. There is too much obstruction going on which is never reviewed by the TMO. If you review a try for a suspected knock or stepping on the sideline, why not (quickly) review a try for obstruction at the maul? It never happens. I reviewed all of Fainga'as tries this year and there were two which were pretty clear truck & trailers/obstructions.

Whether you think the maul is boring or not, one thing we should all agree on is that the rules should be applied consistently and properly.

 

[Dctarget]

Interesting take is that Brumbies didn't deliver a dominant performance and shouldn't be overly happy with the results. Hansen misses that shot and we're all complaining that Brumbies only have one trick and it wasn't enough.

 

[Slim 293]

Sorta. Here's some other stats for you: pre-covid Brumbies scored 5 of their 31 tries from mauls. Post-covid they have scored 7/16 tries from mauls. I agree that pre-covid they scored some good tries pre-covid (Kata, Simone, Banks and Wright were all prominent) but post-covid not so much. It feels to me that there is an over-reliance on the tactic by the Brumbies at the moment. I am excited by what Banks, Kata and Wright might bring to the game but the Brumbies tactics at the moment isnt allowing it to happen.



Yes, this. There is too much obstruction going on which is never reviewed by the TMO. If you review a try for a suspected knock or stepping on the sideline, why not (quickly) review a try for obstruction at the maul? It never happens. I reviewed all of Fainga'as tries this year and there were two which were pretty clear truck & trailers/obstructions.

Whether you think the maul is boring or not, one thing we should all agree on is that the rules should be applied consistently and properly.

6/16 to be pedantic......... half of those against the Reds on the weekend.

 

[Wilson]

Brumbies scoring a greater percentage of maul tries post-covid vs pre-covid may just speak to the poor maul defence of Australian sides.

 

[Number 7]

6/16 to be pedantic... half of those against the Reds on the weekend.

I counted 7 when I rewatched all the highlights although the difference could be the one Powell scored off the back from a metre out.

Brumbies scoring a greater percentage of maul tries post-covid vs pre-covid may just speak to the poor maul defence of Australian sides.

...or they are mauling more.

I just found the Brumbies really unambitious on the weekend in attack compared to the reds. They are better than that.

 

[Up the Guts]

Brumbies scoring a greater percentage of maul tries post-covid vs pre-covid may just speak to the poor maul defence of Australian sides.

Reds*