The Maul lives on in the S14

[fatprop]

Notice that the maul is now new and improved and comes standard with detachable front section?

And the nay sayers said it would disappear.

 

[naza]

One day you may tell your children about it. Though I doubt they'd believe you !

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I did notice in one of the games, - I think it was the Brum - Crus game, the defending side detached from binding and therefore the maul was no more and the team with the ball - held at the back - had to play the ball immediately lest they be ruled offside when the defenders then rebound.

 

[Blue]

Notice that the maul is now new and improved and comes standard with detachable front section?

And the nay sayers said it would disappear.

Surely that does not constitute a maul? More like a disjointed rumble forward with nobody really sure what to do. There were two of them in the Brumbies game. It was about 18 meters long. I hate this new shithouse law.

 

[fatprop]

Notice that the maul is now new and improved and comes standard with detachable front section?

And the nay sayers said it would disappear.

Surely that does not constitute a maul? More like a disjointed rumble forward with nobody really sure what to do. There were two of them in the Brumbies game. It was about 18 meters long. I hate this new shithouse law.

The Tahs did a couple of mauls that gained a few good metres.

They let the front splinter as they were pulled down and kept the maul moving foward.

The splintered forwards then rejoined at the back to keep it going - in one maul they splintered three times, but kept

My point is that we are now seeing new approaches to these new rules, the maul has changed but it still can be a tool for good.

 

[cyclopath]

Notice that the maul is now new and improved and comes standard with detachable front section?

And the nay sayers said it would disappear.

Surely that does not constitute a maul? More like a disjointed rumble forward with nobody really sure what to do. There were two of them in the Brumbies game. It was about 18 meters long. I hate this new shithouse law.

The Tahs did a couple of mauls that gained a few good metres.

They let the front splinter as they were pulled down and kept the maul moving foward.

The splintered forwards then rejoined at the back to keep it going - in one maul they splintered three times, but kept

My point is that we are now seeing new approaches to these new rules, the maul has changed but it still can be a tool for good.

I think it's interesting, if only to show that coaches are looking at these ELVs and working out ways to develop the game within them. I think it's a good sign, but obviously a new "type" of maul that may take some getting used to. May take some defending too, if they perfect the art of dropping the front and reforming. We'll see.

 

[Blue]

Notice that the maul is now new and improved and comes standard with detachable front section?

And the nay sayers said it would disappear.

Surely that does not constitute a maul? More like a disjointed rumble forward with nobody really sure what to do. There were two of them in the Brumbies game. It was about 18 meters long. I hate this new shithouse law.

The Tahs did a couple of mauls that gained a few good metres.

They let the front splinter as they were pulled down and kept the maul moving foward.

The splintered forwards then rejoined at the back to keep it going - in one maul they splintered three times, but kept

My point is that we are now seeing new approaches to these new rules, the maul has changed but it still can be a tool for good.

I think it's interesting, if only to show that coaches are looking at these ELVs and working out ways to develop the game within them. I think it's a good sign, but obviously a new "type" of maul that may take some getting used to. May take some defending too, if they perfect the art of dropping the front and reforming. We'll see.

Surely if there are players at the front of the "maul" who are able to drop off and rejoin at the back, it was a truck and trailer in the first place or has the truck and trailer law been dropped with the maul change?

If a video editing buff can clip one of the Bumblebees mauls?

I don't think its interesting. Its a disjointed mess and something that was working fine was dropped. I am ok for most ELV's but not this.

Bring back mauls.

 

[naza]

I don't think its interesting. Its a disjointed mess and something that was working fine was dropped. I am ok for most ELV's but not this.

Bring back mauls.

Well said sir. What we're seeing is the rugby equivalent of light beer. Its a cardinal sin and we know when we're being robbed !

 

[fatprop]

Notice that the maul is now new and improved and comes standard with detachable front section?

And the nay sayers said it would disappear.

Surely that does not constitute a maul? More like a disjointed rumble forward with nobody really sure what to do. There were two of them in the Brumbies game. It was about 18 meters long. I hate this new shithouse law.

The Tahs did a couple of mauls that gained a few good metres.

They let the front splinter as they were pulled down and kept the maul moving foward.

The splintered forwards then rejoined at the back to keep it going - in one maul they splintered three times, but kept

My point is that we are now seeing new approaches to these new rules, the maul has changed but it still can be a tool for good.

I think it's interesting, if only to show that coaches are looking at these ELVs and working out ways to develop the game within them. I think it's a good sign, but obviously a new "type" of maul that may take some getting used to. May take some defending too, if they perfect the art of dropping the front and reforming. We'll see.

Surely if there are players at the front of the "maul" who are able to drop off and rejoin at the back, it was a truck and trailer in the first place or has the truck and trailer law been dropped with the maul change?

If a video editing buff can clip one of the Bumblebees mauls?

I don't think its interesting. Its a disjointed mess and something that was working fine was dropped. I am ok for most ELV's but not this.

Bring back mauls.

It wasn't truck and trailer, the leading forwards were pulled down but the followers weren't and kept moving forward.

 

[Pfitzy]

Its good - mauls are faster, more competitve, and more difficult to execute as they should be. Not 8 fat blokes forming a phalanx and waiting for the referee to polish their collective cocks no matter how illegal their use of the ball.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Notice that the maul is now new and improved and comes standard with detachable front section?

And the nay sayers said it would disappear.

Surely that does not constitute a maul? More like a disjointed rumble forward with nobody really sure what to do. There were two of them in the Brumbies game. It was about 18 meters long. I hate this new shithouse law.

The Tahs did a couple of mauls that gained a few good metres.

They let the front splinter as they were pulled down and kept the maul moving foward.

The splintered forwards then rejoined at the back to keep it going - in one maul they splintered three times, but kept

My point is that we are now seeing new approaches to these new rules, the maul has changed but it still can be a tool for good.

I think it's interesting, if only to show that coaches are looking at these ELVs and working out ways to develop the game within them. I think it's a good sign, but obviously a new "type" of maul that may take some getting used to. May take some defending too, if they perfect the art of dropping the front and reforming. We'll see.

Surely if there are players at the front of the "maul" who are able to drop off and rejoin at the back, it was a truck and trailer in the first place or has the truck and trailer law been dropped with the maul change?

If a video editing buff can clip one of the Bumblebees mauls?

I don't think its interesting. Its a disjointed mess and something that was working fine was dropped. I am ok for most ELV's but not this.

Bring back mauls.

Truck and trailer provide for pre maul where there are no opposition binding.
A player may be in front of the ball carrier if he is bound to or caught in a maul.
No truck and trailer.

 

[Scotty]

Its good - mauls are faster, more competitve, and more difficult to execute as they should be. Not 8 fat blokes forming a phalanx and waiting for the referee to polish their collective cocks no matter how illegal their use of the ball.

Whole heartedly agree, particularly in regards to the bolded bit and some northern hemisphere referees in days gone by - they are the ones that killed the old maul due to their reluctance to referee to the law and actually make the attacking team use it or lose it if it was stopped.