The death of the driving maul?

As I understand, an edict was issued from on high in the IRB regarding areas that referees are supposed to crack down on and shown consistency in for this world cup. Apart from the obvious tackle area matter as one of the 5, I believe that the driving maul was also the subject of the guidance, more specifically that a defending player must be able to access the ball carrier. To my way of thinking, that effectively rules out the driving maul, where the hindmost player carries the ball behind his other 7 forwards - in theory, it is fine for one of the first line of players to carry the ball but definitely not the last. Now as far as I could tell from the first round of matches, virtually every team broke this revised 'interpretation' of the mauling laws. What do other posters reckon?

The rolling maul is something I have never understood. The Stellenbosch rules got rid for a while and then it was brought back.

I don't get how you can have 7 guys in front of the ball carrier clearing a path for the guy with the ball who is hanging on to the back of it.

I can understand the ball carrier being at the front being driven on my his team mates with the opposition having a fair chance to compete for the ball.

doctornickolas wrote:
...
I don't get how you can have 7 guys in front of the ball carrier clearing a path for the guy with the ball who is hanging on to the back of it.
...

True. Though in fairness a similar thing happens when a team goes for a push-over scrum - only difference is the ball is on the deck, but once the 8's foot touches it ...

Rolling mauls I don't have a problem with, when done properly they are hugely effective.

Driving mauls I see as being something completely different. Where you effectively have about a 6 player shield and we often get the whole "truck and trailer" think, which I'm pretty sure England (?) were penalised for over the weekend. I don't like seeing that, to me that's not a proper maul

But then, I don't profess to understand the workings of the maul very well!

There are perfectly legal ways to stop a driving maul without removing it entirely from rugby. It's a thing of beauty if done well and really gets the crowd going.

Asbo, maybe I've misunderstood the laws (certainly not a good thing if I'm meant to be refereeing tomorrow)



However this is my understand of the maul at the moment:



1 - that the INITIAL contact is with the ball carrier. The ball can be transferred then to the back of the maul legally.



2 - that when players are joining a maul then join BEHIND the ball carrier and not in front of him. The ball should then be continually passed to the back of the maul rather than the same guy sitting at the back of it for the whole thing.



3 - That the ball carrier REMAINS BOUND. If he isn't fully bound he is fair game to be tackled and the guys in front of him may be guilty of truck and trailer offenses.



4 - That if a maul goes to strong LEGALLY(i.e. isn't pulled down by opposition) and ball isn't immediatly playable its a scrum to defending team.



However I don't believe there is any need for the ball carrier to remain at the front of the maul.

Yep - and yet Clancy ruled out an AB try for alleged obstruction, because the Tongan's chose to tackle McCaw who didn't even have the ball, rather than Dagg who did.

Grey - that had nothing to do with this.

Anyway.... Shuffles back to door slowly and avoids eye contact.

I was under the impression a maul had to be entered from the back, so all the driving players hit the player with the ball and bind, then the ball can be passed back.

Similar to in open play if a player carries the ball up, is tackled but doesn't go to ground his mates can then drive him forwards. Hipkiss at Leicester used to do this really well.

It was refreshing to see the stepping in and blocking penalised on the weekend, although it still is hit and miss and a few of the refs just seemed to ignore it completely.

red_stag wrote:Grey - that had nothing to do with this.

I think it does. If it's *not* obstruction for 7 guys to form a wedge, while a guy walks along behind them clutching the ball, then I fail to see how it can be obstruction when a Tongan runs into McCaw whilst Dagg is skirting around to score in the corner.

Are we really saying that if Dagg had fleetingly touched McCaw's back before diving over for the try, then it would have *not* been obstruction?

That sounds silly to me.

But its nothing to do with the maul? It was some open play and a mistake by a ref. New Zealand made plenty of them too.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs (Man that's a mouthful), do you have link to this edict? I'd like to see what exactly they're trying to achieve.

My memory is pretty similar to that above. I think it was pretty straight forward, and clearly telegraphed by the IRB in the lead up to the tournement. You can still get a maul going it's just harder to do.

doctornickolas wrote:I don't get how you can have 7 guys in front of the ball carrier clearing a path for the guy with the ball who is hanging on to the back of it.

I don't understand why people have an issue with this but don't say the same thing for a ruck. There are players in front of the ball blocking access to it. They're both specific areas of the game defined in the laws. The idea is that if players from both sides are bound together they form one unit. If the ball is carried it's a maul, if it's on the floor it's a ruck. Once the maul/ruck is formed the ball can be anywhere with it without offside being ruled.

greybeard wrote:AsLongAsBut100ofUs (Man that's a mouthful), do you have link to this edict? I'd like to see what exactly they're trying to achieve.

greybeard, it was only in a newspaper article that i read it, but I'll see if I can dig it out for you

red_stag wrote:But its nothing to do with the maul? It was some open play and a mistake by a ref. New Zealand made plenty of them too.

You were pointing out the lack of referees calling obstruction in the obvious situation where obstruction exists in the maul.

I'm merely pointing out the irony in a referee calling an obstruction in open play when there wasn't any, despite that.

It's adding weight to my general point that the standard of refereeing in international rugby is 15 years behind the standard of play.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

greybeard wrote:AsLongAsBut100ofUs (Man that's a mouthful), do you have link to this edict? I'd like to see what exactly they're trying to achieve.

greybeard, it was only in a newspaper article that i read it, but I'll see if I can dig it out for you

Ah, no need. I can't get the British papers here. Unless you want to write it out for me

3 - That the ball carrier REMAINS BOUND. If he isn't fully bound he is fair game to be tackled and the guys in front of him may be guilty of truck and trailer offenses.

Red Stag....what's the definition of "REMAINS BOUND"??? Because we mostly see players just hanging on one handed and, as far as i'm concerned, thats not bound (it's not at scrum time), but no one ever gets penalised for it!

Well he'll have to be one handed because he needs to hold the ball in the other



But seriously the laws basically just say that placing a hand on the maul doesn't constitute a bind and you must be bound between your hand and shoulder. I agree its not penalised or managed enough.

Is this what you mean by being bound Stag? I'm not sure about keeping hold of the ball though!

Its certainly an interesting take Rava - have you been watching this video:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTpXymuwxNs

red_stag wrote:Its certainly an interesting take Rava - have you been watching this video:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTpXymuwxNs

red_stag wrote:Its certainly an interesting take Rava - have you been watching this video:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTpXymuwxNs

How have you not linked the midget song to the england escapade?! [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX1BdMwdrL8&feature=related ]MIDGET SONG[/url]

gilla wrote:Red Stag....what's the definition of "REMAINS BOUND"??? Because we mostly see players just hanging on one handed and, as far as i'm concerned, thats not bound (it's not at scrum time), but no one ever gets penalised for it!

Japan v New Zealand, 27th minute - referee penalised this

Yup, saw that, so the law is being applied more 'efficiently'?

I'd use the word 'correctly'

Saw the same in the Samoa v Namibia match. Ref just called 'ball is out' once the binding became a hand on the back. Probably would have been a penalty but one of the Namibians had come through the maul so there was no obstruction at the time.

I confess that I like this better application of the law