Discussion:
Rolling maul nothing short of obstruction on the move
(too old to reply)
Brent Hadley
2015-05-11 12:00:15 UTC
Permalink
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419

This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both attacking and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so the topic is a little fresher than it might appear on the face of it. Interested to know what people think.

Cheers

Brent
John Williams
2015-05-11 17:43:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT), Brent Hadley
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both attacking and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so the topic is a little fresher than it might appear on the face of it. Interested to know what people think.
The farce at the maul currently, in my view, is that there is a
strange new development whereby the ref calls "It's a maul" and the
defending side instantly collapse the maul and fall over the ball,
gaining the put-in to a scrum. This seems directly contrary to the
laws:


17.2 Joining a maul
(d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavor to
stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground
providing the ball is available immediately and play continues.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous
play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

I must admit I can't remember the last time I saw what I consider a
rolling maul, when a new player takes the ball and drives forward,
left or right, and the other maulers roll around him. Most mauls are
what I call driving mauls.

With driving mauls I think a lot is taste and custom. However when I
see people saying mauls should be banned, they never really define
what they think should take it's place. Two attackers, one with the
ball, and one defender all on their feet make a maul. So what happens
once the maul forms?

And whilst such things are under consideration, don't forget the ruck
and the ridiculous current interpretation allowing "clearing out" by
diving over the ball player. That directly contradicts the below,
particularly d):

16.2 Joining a ruck
(a) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have
their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
Sanction: Free Kick

(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent,
using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous
with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining
the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute
binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on
their feet.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The state things are in lead to such dangerous play as that shown by
Henderson (Ulster) and particularly Bai (Leicester) who might have
been given red cards, but could have seriously injured the defending
players involved.

https://balls.ie/rugby/286040-iain-henderson-red-card/

http://balls.ie/rugby/286927-bai-red-card/
--
All the best
John Williams
Peter J Ross
2015-05-11 18:35:49 UTC
Permalink
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 18:43:45 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
On Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT), Brent Hadley
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both attacking and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so the topic is a little fresher than it might appear on the face of it. Interested to know what people think.
The farce at the maul currently, in my view, is that there is a
strange new development whereby the ref calls "It's a maul" and the
defending side instantly collapse the maul and fall over the ball,
gaining the put-in to a scrum. This seems directly contrary to the
17.2 Joining a maul
(d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavor to
stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground
providing the ball is available immediately and play continues.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous
play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Yep. The existing laws are clear, and referees should enforce them.

In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
Post by John Williams
I must admit I can't remember the last time I saw what I consider a
rolling maul, when a new player takes the ball and drives forward,
left or right, and the other maulers roll around him. Most mauls are
what I call driving mauls.
Driving mauls certainly predominate, but I've seen a fair few rolling
mauls recently in the Pro 12.
Post by John Williams
With driving mauls I think a lot is taste and custom. However when I
see people saying mauls should be banned, they never really define
what they think should take it's place. Two attackers, one with the
ball, and one defender all on their feet make a maul. So what happens
once the maul forms?
What should happen is that players break away from the front or the
side and join again at the back, with the ball being handed backwards
to them when appropriate.

When players leave at the side and re-join at the side, that's wrong,
and it's usually penalised.

I'm quite happy with the refereeing of the maul. And for god's sake
let's not have the maul so overwhelmed with conflicting laws that it
becomes as farcical as the scrum currently is.
Post by John Williams
And whilst such things are under consideration, don't forget the ruck
and the ridiculous current interpretation allowing "clearing out" by
diving over the ball player. That directly contradicts the below,
16.2 Joining a ruck
(a) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have
their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
Sanction: Free Kick
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent,
using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous
with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining
the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute
binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on
their feet.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Launching oneself into the air in order to land on top of a ruck is
not good. Dragging a player into the air by his legs is also not good.
Both are examples of reckless play and ought to be penalised
accordingly.
Post by John Williams
The state things are in lead to such dangerous play as that shown by
Henderson (Ulster) and particularly Bai (Leicester) who might have
been given red cards, but could have seriously injured the defending
players involved.
https://balls.ie/rugby/286040-iain-henderson-red-card/
Reckless. He was penalised for "leading with the head", but he was in
the air so he had no control over what he led with. Even if he'd
happened to have been "leading with the forearm" when he made contact,
it should still have counted as reckless play. Well done, Our Nige.
Post by John Williams
http://balls.ie/rugby/286927-bai-red-card/
No video, so no comment.

There have been recent occasions when players have been in trouble for
alleged reckless play when the ball has been descending towards them
from the sky, but when the ball is not in the air there shoudn't be a
problem. When the ball is on the ground or in another player's hands,
aerial attacks are bad.
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
John Williams
2015-05-11 18:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 18:43:45 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
On Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT), Brent Hadley
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both attacking and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so the topic is a little fresher than it might appear on the face of it. Interested to know what people think.
The farce at the maul currently, in my view, is that there is a
strange new development whereby the ref calls "It's a maul" and the
defending side instantly collapse the maul and fall over the ball,
gaining the put-in to a scrum.
[...]
Post by Peter J Ross
Yep. The existing laws are clear, and referees should enforce them.
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by John Williams
I must admit I can't remember the last time I saw what I consider a
rolling maul, when a new player takes the ball and drives forward,
left or right, and the other maulers roll around him. Most mauls are
what I call driving mauls.
Driving mauls certainly predominate, but I've seen a fair few rolling
mauls recently in the Pro 12.
Lucky you!
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by John Williams
With driving mauls I think a lot is taste and custom. However when I
see people saying mauls should be banned, they never really define
what they think should take it's place. Two attackers, one with the
ball, and one defender all on their feet make a maul. So what happens
once the maul forms?
What should happen is that players break away from the front or the
side and join again at the back, with the ball being handed backwards
to them when appropriate.
When players leave at the side and re-join at the side, that's wrong,
and it's usually penalised.
Indeed. However if the "rolling maul" is banned, as the writer
suggests then some alternative has to be found which gives some
continuity of play. I've yet to hear what that might be.

[...]
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by John Williams
And whilst such things are under consideration, don't forget the ruck
and the ridiculous current interpretation allowing "clearing out" by
diving over the ball player.
[...]
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by John Williams
http://balls.ie/rugby/286927-bai-red-card/
No video, so no comment.
No vine running if you scroll down a little?
Post by Peter J Ross
There have been recent occasions when players have been in trouble for
alleged reckless play when the ball has been descending towards them
from the sky, but when the ball is not in the air there shoudn't be a
problem. When the ball is on the ground or in another player's hands,
aerial attacks are bad.
Yup!
--
All the best
John Williams
Peter J Ross
2015-05-11 19:40:16 UTC
Permalink
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 18:43:45 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
On Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT), Brent Hadley
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both attacking
and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so the topic is
a little fresher than it might appear on the face of it.
Interested to know what people think.
The farce at the maul currently, in my view, is that there is a
strange new development whereby the ref calls "It's a maul" and
the defending side instantly collapse the maul and fall over the
ball, gaining the put-in to a scrum.
[...]
Post by Peter J Ross
Yep. The existing laws are clear, and referees should enforce them.
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by John Williams
I must admit I can't remember the last time I saw what I consider
a rolling maul, when a new player takes the ball and drives
forward, left or right, and the other maulers roll around him.
Most mauls are what I call driving mauls.
Driving mauls certainly predominate, but I've seen a fair few
rolling mauls recently in the Pro 12.
Lucky you!
The Irish teams do the rolling maul best. Glasgow are also pretty
good. It's no coincidence that Glasgow and three Irish teams are in
the play-offs for the Pro 12 championship.

I don't remember seeing a good rolling maul in the 6N. Ireland beat
Scotland with the less interesting driving maul against clueless
opposition.
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by John Williams
With driving mauls I think a lot is taste and custom. However when
I see people saying mauls should be banned, they never really
define what they think should take it's place. Two attackers, one
with the ball, and one defender all on their feet make a maul. So
what happens once the maul forms?
What should happen is that players break away from the front or the
side and join again at the back, with the ball being handed
backwards to them when appropriate.
When players leave at the side and re-join at the side, that's
wrong, and it's usually penalised.
Indeed. However if the "rolling maul" is banned, as the writer
suggests then some alternative has to be found which gives some
continuity of play. I've yet to hear what that might be.
It ain't broke. Why fix it?
Post by John Williams
[...]
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by John Williams
And whilst such things are under consideration, don't forget the
ruck and the ridiculous current interpretation allowing "clearing
out" by diving over the ball player.
[...]
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by John Williams
http://balls.ie/rugby/286927-bai-red-card/
No video, so no comment.
No vine running if you scroll down a little?
Hmm. It seems that I have to click the link to view the video at
vine.co.

Yes, that's nasty, but it's nasty in an old-fashioned way. He's not
off his feet, so he's not lost control of his limbs. He used his hand
first to prepare for his use of his head. It's intentional rather than
reckless. Definitely worth a red card and a few weeks off.
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
There have been recent occasions when players have been in trouble
for alleged reckless play when the ball has been descending towards
them from the sky, but when the ball is not in the air there
shoudn't be a problem. When the ball is on the ground or in another
player's hands, aerial attacks are bad.
Yup!
Rugby is a rough game, and I don't want it to be turned into a gentle
game.

But a rough game doesn't have to be reckless or brutal.
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
John Williams
2015-05-11 20:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
and defending players are now allowed to collapse said maul, lie on
the ball and get the put in to the scrum. It happens regularly in the
premiership, and is very annoying. The key to this is the ref
announcing it is a maul. If the maul goes down and the attacking team
gains quick ball, or clear possession, fine, but the defenders are not
penalised if they flop down killing the ball.
--
All the best
John Williams
Mark (newsgroups)
2015-05-12 11:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
and defending players are now allowed to collapse said maul, lie on
the ball and get the put in to the scrum. It happens regularly in the
premiership, and is very annoying. The key to this is the ref
announcing it is a maul. If the maul goes down and the attacking team
gains quick ball, or clear possession, fine, but the defenders are not
penalised if they flop down killing the ball.
I know exactly what you are referring to, it has been happening for years. Technically you are correct but I actually don't mind the way the refs allow this because it is better than the alternative, which is just waiting around until the it all becomes static anyway and the same result, put in for defending team.

I also don't see the reason we are not allowed to collapse the maul in the first place. I don't believe it is dangerous or any more dangerous than any regular tackle or scrum or ruck.
kev or lou
2015-05-13 08:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark (newsgroups)
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
and defending players are now allowed to collapse said maul, lie on
the ball and get the put in to the scrum. It happens regularly in the
premiership, and is very annoying. The key to this is the ref
announcing it is a maul. If the maul goes down and the attacking team
gains quick ball, or clear possession, fine, but the defenders are not
penalised if they flop down killing the ball.
I know exactly what you are referring to, it has been happening for years. Technically you are correct but I actually don't mind the way the refs allow this because it is better than the alternative, which is just waiting around until the it all becomes static anyway and the same result, put in for defending team.
I also don't see the reason we are not allowed to collapse the maul in the first place. I don't believe it is dangerous or any more dangerous than any regular tackle or scrum or ruck.
Collapsing the maul is a cop out for me. It's too easy to do. Unfair on
a good pack. I didnt think that when that new rule was reversed it was
due to safety reasons?

I think mauls that are initiated from situtaitons other than the driving
lineout are naturally more prone to instability. Makes refs job harder
in those situations determining if it's deliberately been collapsed or not.
dechucka
2015-05-13 20:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark (newsgroups)
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
and defending players are now allowed to collapse said maul, lie on
the ball and get the put in to the scrum. It happens regularly in the
premiership, and is very annoying. The key to this is the ref
announcing it is a maul. If the maul goes down and the attacking team
gains quick ball, or clear possession, fine, but the defenders are not
penalised if they flop down killing the ball.
I know exactly what you are referring to, it has been happening for
years. Technically you are correct but I actually don't mind the way the
refs allow this because it is better than the alternative, which is just
waiting around until the it all becomes static anyway and the same
result, put in for defending team.
I also don't see the reason we are not allowed to collapse the maul in
the first place. I don't believe it is dangerous or any more dangerous
than any regular tackle or scrum or ruck.
Collapsing the maul is a cop out for me. It's too easy to do. Unfair on a
good pack. I didnt think that when that new rule was reversed it was due
to safety reasons?
I think mauls that are initiated from situtaitons other than the driving
lineout are naturally more prone to instability. Makes refs job harder in
those situations determining if it's deliberately been collapsed or not.
You can take the receiver to the ground immediately in a lineout
kev or lou
2015-05-15 16:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by kev or lou
Post by Mark (newsgroups)
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
and defending players are now allowed to collapse said maul, lie on
the ball and get the put in to the scrum. It happens regularly in the
premiership, and is very annoying. The key to this is the ref
announcing it is a maul. If the maul goes down and the attacking team
gains quick ball, or clear possession, fine, but the defenders are not
penalised if they flop down killing the ball.
I know exactly what you are referring to, it has been happening for
years. Technically you are correct but I actually don't mind the way
the refs allow this because it is better than the alternative, which
is just waiting around until the it all becomes static anyway and the
same result, put in for defending team.
I also don't see the reason we are not allowed to collapse the maul
in the first place. I don't believe it is dangerous or any more
dangerous than any regular tackle or scrum or ruck.
Collapsing the maul is a cop out for me. It's too easy to do. Unfair
on a good pack. I didnt think that when that new rule was reversed it
was due to safety reasons?
I think mauls that are initiated from situtaitons other than the
driving lineout are naturally more prone to instability. Makes refs
job harder in those situations determining if it's deliberately been
collapsed or not.
You can take the receiver to the ground immediately in a lineout
How is that relevant?
e***@hotmail.co.uk
2015-05-15 18:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by kev or lou
Post by dechucka
Post by kev or lou
Post by Mark (newsgroups)
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
and defending players are now allowed to collapse said maul, lie on
the ball and get the put in to the scrum. It happens regularly in the
premiership, and is very annoying. The key to this is the ref
announcing it is a maul. If the maul goes down and the attacking team
gains quick ball, or clear possession, fine, but the defenders are not
penalised if they flop down killing the ball.
I know exactly what you are referring to, it has been happening for
years. Technically you are correct but I actually don't mind the way
the refs allow this because it is better than the alternative, which
is just waiting around until the it all becomes static anyway and the
same result, put in for defending team.
I also don't see the reason we are not allowed to collapse the maul
in the first place. I don't believe it is dangerous or any more
dangerous than any regular tackle or scrum or ruck.
Collapsing the maul is a cop out for me. It's too easy to do. Unfair
on a good pack. I didnt think that when that new rule was reversed it
was due to safety reasons?
I think mauls that are initiated from situtaitons other than the
driving lineout are naturally more prone to instability. Makes refs
job harder in those situations determining if it's deliberately been
collapsed or not.
You can take the receiver to the ground immediately in a lineout
How is that relevant?
The Earl thinks it is very relevant since if the catcher of the ball is immediately on the ground is within 0seconds of catching the ball, then either they did not jump, or travelled through a wormhole in order to get there in zero seconds.

A serious question from the Earl. The tackler cannot be tackled in the air, can his teammates bind to him and start the maul before his feet are on the ground? Further are his teammates allowed to bind to him before he is tackled?
Peter J Ross
2015-05-13 17:03:24 UTC
Permalink
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 21:48:01 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
Yes, that should be called as a maul as soon as it's clear that the
tackled player isn't falling over. Or else the new technique of the
choke tackle needs a new law to govern it. If choke tackles were
banned outright, it wouldn't bother me.
Post by John Williams
and defending players are now allowed to collapse said maul, lie on
the ball and get the put in to the scrum. It happens regularly in the
premiership, and is very annoying.
You're right that it doesn't happen like that very often in the Pro
12. I agree that it shouldn't happen at all.

In the Pro 12 we have the advantage of Nigel Owens setting an example
for the other referees to follow.
Post by John Williams
The key to this is the ref announcing it is a maul. If the maul goes
down and the attacking team gains quick ball, or clear possession,
fine, but the defenders are not penalised if they flop down killing
the ball.
Yes. It's not a pretty sight.
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
dechucka
2015-05-13 20:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 21:48:01 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
Yes, that should be called as a maul as soon as it's clear that the
tackled player isn't falling over. Or else the new technique of the
choke tackle needs a new law to govern it. If choke tackles were
banned outright, it wouldn't bother me.
Choke tackles are illegal now
Mark (newsgroups)
2015-05-14 07:58:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9:34:37 PM UTC+1, dechucka wrote:

[...]
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
choke tackle needs a new law to govern it. If choke tackles were
banned outright, it wouldn't bother me.
Choke tackles are illegal now
Did you guys understand John's actual text.
Peter J Ross
2015-05-15 16:10:09 UTC
Permalink
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Thu, 14 May 2015 06:34:22 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 21:48:01 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
Yes, that should be called as a maul as soon as it's clear that the
tackled player isn't falling over. Or else the new technique of the
choke tackle needs a new law to govern it. If choke tackles were
banned outright, it wouldn't bother me.
Choke tackles are illegal now
Not according to this article and many similar ones:

<http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/23/wales-shaun-edwards-choke-tackle-blight-game-should-banned>
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
dechucka
2015-05-15 21:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Thu, 14 May 2015 06:34:22 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 21:48:01 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
Yes, that should be called as a maul as soon as it's clear that the
tackled player isn't falling over. Or else the new technique of the
choke tackle needs a new law to govern it. If choke tackles were
banned outright, it wouldn't bother me.
Choke tackles are illegal now
<http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/23/wales-shaun-edwards-choke-tackle-blight-game-should-banned>
That they occur doesn't mean they are legal
Peter J Ross
2015-05-15 21:50:26 UTC
Permalink
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Sat, 16 May 2015 07:36:10 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Thu, 14 May 2015 06:34:22 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 21:48:01 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
Yes, that should be called as a maul as soon as it's clear that the
tackled player isn't falling over. Or else the new technique of the
choke tackle needs a new law to govern it. If choke tackles were
banned outright, it wouldn't bother me.
Choke tackles are illegal now
<http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/23/wales-shaun-edwards-choke-tackle-blight-game-should-banned>
That they occur doesn't mean they are legal
I don't understand. If they're already illegal, why are Shaun Edwards
and others calling for them to be banned? The article I cited dates
from February this year.
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
dechucka
2015-05-15 22:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Sat, 16 May 2015 07:36:10 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Thu, 14 May 2015 06:34:22 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 21:48:01 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
Yes, that should be called as a maul as soon as it's clear that the
tackled player isn't falling over. Or else the new technique of the
choke tackle needs a new law to govern it. If choke tackles were
banned outright, it wouldn't bother me.
Choke tackles are illegal now
<http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/23/wales-shaun-edwards-choke-tackle-blight-game-should-banned>
That they occur doesn't mean they are legal
I don't understand. If they're already illegal, why are Shaun Edwards
and others calling for them to be banned? The article I cited dates
from February this year.
10.4 e)

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of
the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A
tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.

Sanction: Penalty kick

OK in a maul we are probably discussing grabbing a player not "tackling"
them but from my pov "attacking the head, throat" by grabbing it is a pk

Like all of these matters it comes down to interpretatation by the ref,
personally or, by edicts from above. Grab a bloke or bird by the throat and
I would of penalized them but that is why I was never reffing at a high
level, well being fat old and fucked knees didn't help
Peter J Ross
2015-05-16 00:18:26 UTC
Permalink
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Sat, 16 May 2015 08:35:54 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Sat, 16 May 2015 07:36:10 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Thu, 14 May 2015 06:34:22 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 21:48:01 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
Yes, that should be called as a maul as soon as it's clear that the
tackled player isn't falling over. Or else the new technique of the
choke tackle needs a new law to govern it. If choke tackles were
banned outright, it wouldn't bother me.
Choke tackles are illegal now
<http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/23/wales-shaun-edwards-choke-tackle-blight-game-should-banned>
That they occur doesn't mean they are legal
I don't understand. If they're already illegal, why are Shaun Edwards
and others calling for them to be banned? The article I cited dates
from February this year.
10.4 e)
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of
the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A
tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
The legal "choke tackle" (if I understand it) is a wrestling tackle
below the neck but above the waist that's designed to force the
attacking player to keep his feet in order to prevent a ruck forming.

*High* choke tackles are penalised.
Post by dechucka
OK in a maul we are probably discussing grabbing a player not "tackling"
them but from my pov "attacking the head, throat" by grabbing it is a pk
John's concern was about the creation of a maul after a successful,
legal choke tackle. According to John (and I have no reason to doubt
him), referees in England often declare a maul later than they ought
to in such circumstances.
Post by dechucka
Like all of these matters it comes down to interpretatation by the ref,
personally or, by edicts from above. Grab a bloke or bird by the throat and
I would of penalized them but that is why I was never reffing at a high
level, well being fat old and fucked knees didn't help
As well as being fat and old and fucked in the knee department, I have
arthritis in my fingers, so I'd have trouble fishing a card out of my
pocket. Fortunately, we elderly wrecks can still give advice. :-)

Who was it who suggested here that all tackling above the waist should
be illegal? I'm increasingly inclined to agree.
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
e***@hotmail.co.uk
2015-05-16 06:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Sat, 16 May 2015 08:35:54 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Sat, 16 May 2015 07:36:10 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Thu, 14 May 2015 06:34:22 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 21:48:01 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
Yes, that should be called as a maul as soon as it's clear that the
tackled player isn't falling over. Or else the new technique of the
choke tackle needs a new law to govern it. If choke tackles were
banned outright, it wouldn't bother me.
Choke tackles are illegal now
<http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/23/wales-shaun-edwards-choke-tackle-blight-game-should-banned>
That they occur doesn't mean they are legal
I don't understand. If they're already illegal, why are Shaun Edwards
and others calling for them to be banned? The article I cited dates
from February this year.
10.4 e)
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of
the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A
tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
The legal "choke tackle" (if I understand it) is a wrestling tackle
below the neck but above the waist that's designed to force the
attacking player to keep his feet in order to prevent a ruck forming.
*High* choke tackles are penalised.
Post by dechucka
OK in a maul we are probably discussing grabbing a player not "tackling"
them but from my pov "attacking the head, throat" by grabbing it is a pk
John's concern was about the creation of a maul after a successful,
legal choke tackle. According to John (and I have no reason to doubt
him), referees in England often declare a maul later than they ought
to in such circumstances.
Post by dechucka
Like all of these matters it comes down to interpretatation by the ref,
personally or, by edicts from above. Grab a bloke or bird by the throat and
I would of penalized them but that is why I was never reffing at a high
level, well being fat old and fucked knees didn't help
As well as being fat and old and fucked in the knee department, I have
arthritis in my fingers, so I'd have trouble fishing a card out of my
pocket. Fortunately, we elderly wrecks can still give advice. :-)
Who was it who suggested here that all tackling above the waist should
be illegal? I'm increasingly inclined to agree.
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
Never let it be said that playing rugby causing long term injuries and ill health...
John Williams
2015-05-16 09:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Like all of these matters it comes down to interpretatation by the ref,
personally or, by edicts from above. Grab a bloke or bird by the throat and
I would of penalized them but that is why I was never reffing at a high
level, well being fat old and fucked knees didn't help
Grabbing by the neck is definitely to be frowned upon. Likewise
pushing in the chest. It can get you ruled out of World Cups....


"Manu Tuilagi admits assaulting police officers"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32757633

I'm trying to see any sliver linings in this particular cloud....

Maybe that Lancaster won't have to risk playing a non match-fit
Tuilagi I suppose just about counts if I shut one eye.
--
All the best
John Williams
e***@hotmail.co.uk
2015-05-16 16:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Williams
Post by dechucka
Like all of these matters it comes down to interpretatation by the ref,
personally or, by edicts from above. Grab a bloke or bird by the throat and
I would of penalized them but that is why I was never reffing at a high
level, well being fat old and fucked knees didn't help
Grabbing by the neck is definitely to be frowned upon. Likewise
pushing in the chest. It can get you ruled out of World Cups....
"Manu Tuilagi admits assaulting police officers"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32757633
I'm trying to see any sliver linings in this particular cloud....
Maybe that Lancaster won't have to risk playing a non match-fit
Tuilagi I suppose just about counts if I shut one eye.
--
All the best
John Williams
The Earl is certain that both the England and New Zealand coaches will be delighted with this result, but less so Wales.
Brent Hadley
2015-05-16 16:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Williams
Post by dechucka
Like all of these matters it comes down to interpretatation by the ref,
personally or, by edicts from above. Grab a bloke or bird by the throat and
I would of penalized them but that is why I was never reffing at a high
level, well being fat old and fucked knees didn't help
Grabbing by the neck is definitely to be frowned upon. Likewise
pushing in the chest. It can get you ruled out of World Cups....
"Manu Tuilagi admits assaulting police officers"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32757633
I'm trying to see any sliver linings in this particular cloud....
He got citizenship a year or two ago and therefore won't be deported.

Cheers

Brent
Peter J Ross
2015-05-21 17:40:27 UTC
Permalink
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Sat, 16 May 2015 10:07:23 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by dechucka
Like all of these matters it comes down to interpretatation by the ref,
personally or, by edicts from above. Grab a bloke or bird by the throat and
I would of penalized them but that is why I was never reffing at a high
level, well being fat old and fucked knees didn't help
Grabbing by the neck is definitely to be frowned upon. Likewise
pushing in the chest. It can get you ruled out of World Cups....
"Manu Tuilagi admits assaulting police officers"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32757633
I'm trying to see any sliver linings in this particular cloud....
Maybe that Lancaster won't have to risk playing a non match-fit
Tuilagi I suppose just about counts if I shut one eye.
There was a similar incident last year in which some Glasgow Warriors
players were accused (and in one case convicted) of assaulting some
Glasgow Hawks players.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31132973>

Wilson missed the Six Nations; Tuilagi will miss the World Cup. It
seems fair to me. The message is that criminal behaviour off the field
has consequences for the criminals' careers on the field. What's wrong
with that? Rugby isn't boxing.
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
e***@hotmail.co.uk
2015-05-16 06:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Sat, 16 May 2015 07:36:10 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Thu, 14 May 2015 06:34:22 +1000, dechucka
Post by dechucka
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 21:48:01 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 19:56:22 +0100, John
Post by John Williams
Post by Peter J Ross
In recent games, I've seen plenty of penalties - and penalty tries -
awarded for collapsing the maul, so I think the refs are doing their
job pretty well.
What about the response when refs say it is a maul, though? All very
arbitrary depending on when the ref gives the signal for "all fall
down".
I'm not sure I understand you. Sometimes I hear the ref shout "It's a
maul!" and it collapses, in which case a penalty is often awarded, but
sometimes the shout is followed by a rolling maul that gains twenty
yards more or less legally.
Maybe you haven't seen the same ruling in Pro12. Imagine a "choke
tackle" type situation. The attacking player is still on his feet. Ref
calls "It's a maul", even though it has been a maul for some while,
Yes, that should be called as a maul as soon as it's clear that the
tackled player isn't falling over. Or else the new technique of the
choke tackle needs a new law to govern it. If choke tackles were
banned outright, it wouldn't bother me.
Choke tackles are illegal now
<http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/23/wales-shaun-edwards-choke-tackle-blight-game-should-banned>
That they occur doesn't mean they are legal
I don't understand. If they're already illegal, why are Shaun Edwards
and others calling for them to be banned? The article I cited dates
from February this year.
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
Edwards was complaining about it for two reasons, neither of which have anything to do with whether they are or should be illegal. His team is big and slow, so are not good at them and are very likely to be caught in them, so he doesn't like them. But he lacks the imagination to find a strategy to counter them.
Geoff Muldoon
2015-05-12 02:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Williams
17.2 Joining a maul
(d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavor to
stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground
providing the ball is available immediately and play continues.
Sanction: Penalty kick
There's only one change I'd definitely like to see made:
The following additional requirements only seem to be applied to rucks,
not mauls, I wish they would be consistently applied to BOTH.
Post by John Williams
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent,
using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous
with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining
the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute
binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick
It irks me to see a forward holding the ball at the rear of a maul,
often connected to it by little more than a fingernail. I'd like to see
the ball carrier be required to be COMPLETELY bound (all the way to the
shoulder) at ALL TIMES. As soon as they become only partially bound, if
they don't break clear of it, penalise them for "truck and trailer".

That and properly enforce the existing "not joining from the side" law
to the attacking team (who seem to get away with murder) as well as the
defending one.

GM
Brent Hadley
2015-05-12 12:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Williams
On Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT), Brent Hadley
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both attacking and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so the topic is a little fresher than it might appear on the face of it. Interested to know what people think.
The farce at the maul currently, in my view, is that there is a
strange new development whereby the ref calls "It's a maul" and the
defending side instantly collapse the maul and fall over the ball,
gaining the put-in to a scrum. This seems directly contrary to the
17.2 Joining a maul
(d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavor to
stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground
providing the ball is available immediately and play continues.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous
play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
I must not watch enough rugby these days - I've literally never seen this. As you say, the law is pretty clear.

I personally am less and less comfortable with that law for reasons I'll come back to, but currently what you've described sounds bizarrely illegal.
Post by John Williams
I must admit I can't remember the last time I saw what I consider a
rolling maul, when a new player takes the ball and drives forward,
left or right, and the other maulers roll around him. Most mauls are
what I call driving mauls.
With driving mauls I think a lot is taste and custom. However when I
see people saying mauls should be banned, they never really define
what they think should take it's place. Two attackers, one with the
ball, and one defender all on their feet make a maul. So what happens
once the maul forms?
I posted the article as a jumping off point for a discussion - I agree that banning it outright doesn't feel reasonable.

There are a couple of things I find increasing distasteful about driving versions of the maul, and one which I have always struggled with.

The one I've always struggled with is that 'collapsing' the maul is entirely prohibited. What this means is that, if a maul forms but the ball is NOT smuggled to the back but held by the man who is carrying that ball, you can't tackle that man because you'd be collapsing the maul. That has always struck me as entirely wrong - how can you be prohibited from playing the ball carrier (let's assume you can do so from an onside position)? It's a relatively edge case these days but the principle irritates me.

The two things that have come to bother me more recently are more matters of personal opinion as you say.

1. I find the accepted technique for forming the maul these days to be profoundly irritating. What you'll see from a lineout is immediate transfer from jumper to the first man coming round. In the old days, the following players would bind around that man in a sort of cluster, and transfer the ball to the back.

These days, the following players either:

- illegally join in front of the first man coming round, allowing him to slip to the back

- join behind the first man coming round, but then slide up in front of him, while the man adjusts his rather loose bind to slip to the back.

The first, as I said, is simply illegal but poorly refereed. The second I think is arguably legal but has the effect of making it vastly easier to transfer the ball to a position where there is no practical opportunity for the ball to be played by the defence, while allowing the attacking side to maximise driving body position. For me it goes one step too far and crosses the line from rewarding good organisation from the pack and instead vastly simplifies the legalised obstruction of the maul. I think there should be a degree of difficulty to the maul, and I think it's become vastly easier to organise one over the last 10 years.

2. Follows on from 1, but is a little different - you will occasionally see a maul form these days which resembles more a human centipede that a maul as we would traditionally recognise it. So you'll have a front vanguard for the maul - say 2-3 people, but then the ball can be as carried as much as 3-4 metres back that vanguard (so it looks like something like 2-3-1-1-(1) or 3-2-1-1-(1) in terms of the formation). This sort of formation makes it quite difficult to contest without coming in from the side, and obviously impossible to play the ball under current law. It's arisen from the interpretation that allows the ball carrier to slip towards the back of the maul as players join behind him.

In my view if you want to transfer the ball to the back of the maul, then you should be required to transfer it TO the player who's joined at the back of the maul. Not to allow the current ball carrier to slip back. We've made it too easy for a maul to form and be driven without teams having to make compromises with their formation in order to protect the ball.
Post by John Williams
And whilst such things are under consideration, don't forget the ruck
and the ridiculous current interpretation allowing "clearing out" by
diving over the ball player. That directly contradicts the below,
16.2 Joining a ruck
(a) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have
their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
Sanction: Free Kick
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent,
using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous
with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining
the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute
binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on
their feet.
Sanction: Penalty kick
The state things are in lead to such dangerous play as that shown by
Henderson (Ulster) and particularly Bai (Leicester) who might have
been given red cards, but could have seriously injured the defending
players involved.
https://balls.ie/rugby/286040-iain-henderson-red-card/
http://balls.ie/rugby/286927-bai-red-card/
This probably speaks to our difference in mindset, but to my mind, 80-90% of the problem of the ruck stems from the freedoms afforded to the defensive side - e.g:

- apparently we seem to have lost the 'clear daylight' guidance at some point - you never see that enforced on tacklers.
- the requirement of the tackler to release generally is only fitfully enforced, particularly by the likes of Wayne Barnes and other NH refs (Owens a notable exception)
- there is clearly no generally enforced requirement that defenders stay on their feet (i.e. can support their body weight without using their hands). A couple of players can set very low legally and be right bloody nuisances to move (Pocock, Armitage), but most of the players on defence are simply lying on the ruck, often with both elbows on the ground.

The problem you describe is a result of teams using the only tactics possible to dislodge defenders doing various illegal but little-penalised things. I doubt you would see it much if you cracked down on defenders.

Cheers

Brent
Peter J Ross
2015-05-11 18:00:28 UTC
Permalink
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both attacking
and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so the topic is a
little fresher than it might appear on the face of it. Interested to
know what people think.
A well-executed rolling maul is a fine sight, and the laws that govern
it are rightly different from the laws that govern other phases of the
game.

Where's the problem?
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
e***@hotmail.co.uk
2015-05-11 18:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both attacking
and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so the topic is a
little fresher than it might appear on the face of it. Interested to
know what people think.
A well-executed rolling maul is a fine sight, and the laws that govern
it are rightly different from the laws that govern other phases of the
game.
Where's the problem?
The Earl presumes that the problem is that some teams are good at excecuting it
e***@hotmail.co.uk
2015-05-11 18:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both attacking
and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so the topic is a
little fresher than it might appear on the face of it. Interested to
know what people think.
A well-executed rolling maul is a fine sight, and the laws that govern
it are rightly different from the laws that govern other phases of the
game.
Where's the problem?
Whoops, a bit premature that last one, sincere apologies.
The Earl presumes that the problem is that some teams are good at mauls and some are not, and New Zealand are one that is not and will be cheated out of winning the world cup by 50.
Peter J Ross
2015-05-11 19:08:09 UTC
Permalink
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both
attacking and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so
the topic is a little fresher than it might appear on the face of
it. Interested to know what people think.
A well-executed rolling maul is a fine sight, and the laws that
govern it are rightly different from the laws that govern other
phases of the game.
Where's the problem?
Whoops, a bit premature that last one, sincere apologies. The Earl
presumes that the problem is that some teams are good at mauls and
some are not, and New Zealand are one that is not
I've watched enough of their recent games to think that they're very
good at mauls. There are teams that choose to maul more often (such as
Italy and to some extent Ireland), but that's because mauling is what
they're best at. NZ choose to maul less often because they're equally
good at other things.
and will be
cheated out of winning the world cup by 50.
Your oft-repeated "by 50" joke is lost on me. I assume you're
referring to discussions that happened before I arrived in this
newsgroup.
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
e***@hotmail.co.uk
2015-05-11 19:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Peter J Ross
In rec.sport.rugby.union on Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT),
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both
attacking and defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so
the topic is a little fresher than it might appear on the face of
it. Interested to know what people think.
A well-executed rolling maul is a fine sight, and the laws that
govern it are rightly different from the laws that govern other
phases of the game.
Where's the problem?
Whoops, a bit premature that last one, sincere apologies. The Earl
presumes that the problem is that some teams are good at mauls and
some are not, and New Zealand are one that is not
I've watched enough of their recent games to think that they're very
good at mauls. There are teams that choose to maul more often (such as
Italy and to some extent Ireland), but that's because mauling is what
they're best at. NZ choose to maul less often because they're equally
good at other things.
and will be
cheated out of winning the world cup by 50.
Your oft-repeated "by 50" joke is lost on me. I assume you're
referring to discussions that happened before I arrived in this
newsgroup.
--
PJR :-)
... ἐκ γὰρ εὐτυχοῦς
ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ᾽ ὁρᾶν.
— Euripides
The Earl suggests that you wait around for the next World Cup when any number of johny come lately New Zealand fanbois will return and spout entertaining predictions, often followed by you heard it hear first.
dechucka
2015-05-11 20:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent Hadley
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11446419
This comes up from time to time. Maul techniques - both attacking and
defending - have changed quite a bit recently, so the topic is a little
fresher than it might appear on the face of it. Interested to know what
people think.
a actual rolling maul as it used to be give the opponents an opportunity to
get the ball, the driving maul with the bloke at the back give no
opportunity and imo is legalized obstruction
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...