Should we ban the Rolling Maul

 Hi everyone, I have been a long time reader of the Ruckers Forum and finally thought I would wade in to the minefield of opinions and points of veiw regarding the greatest game in the world. Pleasentries aside lets get right into it. There currently is an article on Sport24.co.za by Tank Lanning where he tears into a facet of the game which I particularly enjoy, the rollling maul.

Tank's first arguement against the rolling maul is that he believes it to be "no different than legal obstruction". This point of veiw has been echoed by some commentators, coaches and fans alike. Whilst I understand that this stance may have some validity I personally tend to diagree. The "rolling maul" as we know it is currently governed by its own set of rules which are known to both teams based on the fact that it is not exactly the same from your typical obstruction where a non ball carrying attacking player gets in the way of a defender attempting to make the tackle in say a traditional backline set piece. In that case any maul whether the result of a lineout or in regular play should be done away with, starting to look a bit like rugby league then isnt it??? As such maybe a better solution would be to examine the rules and tweak them accordingly (should they even require any alterations at all).

This leads me to his second arguement that the rolling maul is unfair in favour of the attacking team because the defending team is not allowed to collapse the maul. He also says that despite the fact that teams spend countless hours practicing it, and practicing to defend against it, this still does not make it fair as it is still far more diffucult to defend than it is to execute well. I have two probelms with this arguement, firstly if it was such an unfair advantage why do we not see more teams utilising it far more often (Tank does point out that the Crusaders are using it more it seems). Secondly one could argue that because the laws apply to both teams, can there really be an unfair advantage if both teams have the option to use the rolling maul as an attacking option. Absolutely nothing is stopping one team from using it more than another. 

Lastly Tank says that whilst many would point out that it is one of our best attacking weapons (for the Springboks and South African Provinces alike) he asks is it something that we want to be associated with or remembered for, he also labels the rolling maul as "not particularly pretty to watch". I would say why should we be ashamed of perfecting a facet of the game and pursue a more flambouyant style of running passing rugby. I for one also absolutely love seeing the my team gather up some serioys momentum and maul the ball 20 or 30 metres, and I dont think anyone would moan when their side does the same.

Obviuosly most people want to see an expansive,open,  running game of rugby, but at what cost? In recent times we have seen efforts being implemented to speed up the game (using the ball more quckly at the base of a ruck for example) and some I think have improved the game. The fear I have is that the game is moving closer and closer to rugby league. At some point we have to say enough and people must accept that some facets of the game are slower than others, yet are just as enjoyableto watch to a true fan of rugby UNION.

So what do you guys think, in particular what do some of our New Zealand and Australian rugby fans. I have always been a fan of Tank's work so dont think this a hatchet job. This is simply something we disagree on.

Ecko

First of all - a sincere welcome to you. I was particularly impressed by your first contribution.

Insofar as the issue is concerned rugby has to allow for various attacking methods for both backline, as well as  forward play.   Forwards has limited scope to score tries and the rolling maul is definitely on of those and the argument of Tank is really not convincing.   Say there is a scrum and the forwards push the opposing scrummagers over the line - they may as well argue that a try cannot be scored under such circumstances - it is in fact the same principle as a rolling maul - why should the rules be different in such cases?  

Similarly a maul is formed when a player is tackled just short of the line and the players in front push the maul forward and a player pick up the ball and just dive over the  line.  Are the other players off-side because of such an orccurence off-side or providing undue assistance?

As far as I am concerned the rule governing mauls are clear and precise and the referees seem to hve little difficulty in  applying  them.

I think like line-outs and scrums, mauls are  an essential  element of rugby that cannot be removed without changing totally the concept of rugby as  we know it and I do not think a change in system would ever be implemented.

Yes  warm welcome Ecko. Hope you are not overly sensitive as you will seldom find everyone agreeing with you. In some cases certain oaks agreeing with you can be pause to ponder (Think rooitwit!)! Hahahahahahaha

Look the only people perhaps wanting the rolling maul banned would be the fancy pants nz rugby people. Not for them the hard grind of forward play! However for the genuine serious rugby man there are fewer better sights than a rampant rolling maul.

Long live the maul and Tank needs to return the fee he got from the nz oaks for writing that article.      

Please tell the Tank that he is talking total twaddle. If he wants to learn the game he had better come here.

Thanks

Welcome Ekco, am with you on this. Tank is speaking a load of crap. The rolling maul is part of rugby and as fans we enjoy seeing a side executing it well.

Ultimately its about forwards as a unit gaining forward momentum. Its up to the defending side to counter that momentum. Its a great attacking weapon and poses a double edged sword to the defending side......commit numbers to counter the maul and in the process you open up space out wide......its a passage of play that provides a great spectacle.

Long live the rolling maul

No argument here. The rolling maul is  weapon that all teams a free to use, if certain teams choose not to use it, who's fult is that? Beans, it seems that on his first post, Ecko has everyone in agreement...well so far anyway. Welcome Ecko, and if this is the kind of post we'll see from you, you'll be a breath of fresh air.

 What truly separates rugby from the other pretender sports, especially the imitation rugby league, is the facet of it being a truly team game in the physical contact areas - ruck / maul / scrum. One bloke is never left to do it alone - he can count on his teammates coming to help. Take that away and you're left with a bunch of prima donna's striving for individual glory and achievement - think soccer, where the only reason they share the ball is because they expect to get it back for that moment of glory.

Hhahaha Oimatey, too true. Except that soccer is not a sport. It is acting, you know, like WWE or whatever. Any "sport" where cheating (diving, faking injuries, and all the other crap) is just ignored and even encouraged, is not worth shit.

im a huge fan of the rolling maul, but i hate our nearly every SA team are so well versed at it, its like saffas ;earn how to do work a rolling maul b fore they learn how to walk
the rest of the world are capable of doing it, but not the way saffas do it, especially on the back of a lineout.

not to sure why all the drama from this tank fulla, but i dont see any problems with it the way it is.
back in 2009 beofre the ELVs, oppsitie teams used to be allowed to  pull a rolling maul down, i wouldnt mind seeing this rule come back in place, but only cos that makes it easier on my teams, lolz, :oP

i dont think the crusaders employ itn as much as tank makes it out though, and i wonder if hes worried the crusaders might be looking to target this area in the future, cos if anyone could really capitalise and improve it, its the crusaders.

its not the be all end all of rugby, and if they were to get rid of it, rugby would still easily survive, but tank should ask himself just how many games has he watched where rolling mauls was the key component of a team winning, i cant think of any.

what i would like is for the refrees to officiate the rolling mauls better, IMO there are waaaaay too many cases of people coming through the middle legally to wrap the up the ball carrier only to get penalised. its very hard to officate though, especially if the referee is on the ball carriers side.
on thius particular topic, i think assistant refs or TMOs need to help out the ref more.

 As I recall they looked at this a few years ago....and left things alone. I think this was a mistake. It is a time wasting, very capricious part of the game.....with lots of inconsistent decision making.

The argument for not pulling down the maul is safety....but scrum collapses on the hit are far more frequent, dangerous and sanctioned. If we don't want rolling mauls pulled down for safety, we should go back to setting scrums and eliminate the hit.

The answer to me is to allow the maul, but allow it to be pulled down. That way it becomes a try scoring tactic from close, not an automatic penalty generator as a fall back.....and not something that marches up field from 60 metres out.

I tend to agree Moz, if you are allowed to use the rolling maul as an attacking weapon, you should be able to defend it by bringing it down. It is then up to the attacking side to either re set the rolling maul or spread the ball out wide or to the next pod.

Yes sasuke uchicha. South Africa is the best at rolling mauls because it's practiced religously in the showers complete with conga rhythms and other sexy gyrating. They don't call SA the gay capital of the world for nothing you know.

Crusader fans should be worried though without their Captain Fantastic McCaw and their other captain Read, plus no kicker after Carters been shagging himself silly. Bit like Frans Steyn too much shagging and he can't play for shit.

But their biggest worry will be that the Stormers have a full panel of local match officials and you know what that means for the Crusaders.

 I am glad to see that everyone shares the same opinion regarding the rolling maul that I do. 

@Mozart and Saffex, I tend to disagree with you that the defending team should be allowed to bring down the rolling maul, not for safety reasons though. I like to veiw the rolling maul as a an armwrestle of sorts, where the big boys on the field essentially say to the defending side "we think we are way stronger than you, stop us if you think you can" and its this physicality that fans love to see. By allowing the maul to be collapsed this detracts from this as one player could in theory collapse a maul if he made a large enough nusaince of himself.  This punishes the attacking team regarding numbers commited which seems harsh considering they have possession and should naturally have tha advantage, an arguement could be made that the rules apply to both teams the same so use it at your own peril.

I currently see no fault in the current laws that govern the rolling maul and as such would personally not change a thing.

@ big fat yarpie,

LMFAO, :oD

i have a feeling that the next time i see a rolling maul from the saffa teams, im going to have that beat going through my head,,,

conga conga conga
conga conga conga
conga conga conga

crack up. :oD

@ecko,

i partially agree with tha last commment, i dont think the rolling maul needs to be tinkered with at all, it really dosent have as much of an impact as people think, not like between 2008 -2009 when it was a crazy powerful tactic.

but i dont see the rolling maul as the boys saying im stronger then u, cos the current laws and its interpertations by match officials seems to give the those using the rolling maul too much leverage.
defending players are consistently being pinged for coming offside, when there has been loads of evidence to say otherwise.
its like if u start from the back and then work ur way to the ball carrier, u need to make sure u stick to a certain onside path, but when ur travelling backwards and surrounde by an cluster fuck of opponenets & fellow teammates wioth the same task as u, its like what the hell are u meant to do??? cos a gsp couldnt keep u on the right onside path in those conditions, so maybe a bit of leeway towards the defenders.

the way i see it is, if u come through on an onside position to defend/ push against a rolling maul, then as long as u reamain part of the maul, u cant be off side, similar to those on the attacking side of a rolling maul, cos if the defenders continue to get penalised, then maybe brining down the maul like u were allowed to in  before 2010 should be allowed, but hey, im a kiwi & i know saffas have it over us when it comes to this topic, LMAO, :oD
 

agree with most here, love mauls esp attacking ones that keep going to get the dominant try and mental victory. however feel that it is used more as a tool to milk penalties these days and maybe some law changes are needed. But that been said I don't know what you could really change without making it too easy to stop the maul, cause then there's no point of starting one!

 @ sasuke, I tend to personally disagree with you regarding the fact that players are getting picked out for being offside. I believe that often playesr who do break this rule are often not penalised enough. This speaks to the heart of reffing the maul, perhaps that aspect of the maul is being reffed poorly and the law needs updating in order to seek clarification. Some refs allow players to worm their way around the edges and grab onto the ball carrier which find to be wrong. Lets take an example, should a player like Bekker take the ball in a lineout and begin a rolling maul, in my veiw the only way to get to the ball carrier legally would be to go straight past him and inside of any other players outside of him. therefore any players sneaking their way around a maul will get pinged and rightly so.

@allblackandblue, I undertand that one might see the maul as a way of "milimg penalties", but is it not the job of the defeding team to stop said method of attack within the confines of the law. It is not like we havent seen teams effectively stop rolling mauls in a perfectly legal way before. 

Your thoughts...

Welcome Ecko. My thoughts - the rolling maul is as part of the game as the ruck, scrum and lineout.....different facets of the game which makes Rugby unique. Removal of the rolling maul is not an option and it's removal does not necessarily lead into an open or attacking game. If fans want to watch purely attacking rugby then they should watch 7's.

Yea, i cant really think of a rule change that wouldn't make it unfair to the attacking team. Maybe if the ref could ask the tmo weather or not a player is offside or came from an offside position while play still continued. Or maybe changed maul infringments to a free kick. I don't know.