Post by John WilliamsOn Mon, 11 May 2015 05:00:15 -0700 (PDT), Brent Hadley
Post by Brent Hadleyhttp://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 WilliamsI 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 WilliamsAnd 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