Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Super Rugby news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- South Africa Springboks news
The All Blacks and Springboks have both expressed deep concern at the new maul collapsing rule and its implications for safety ahead of Saturday’s Tri-Nations rugby test here.
The International Rugby Board (IRB) has restored the Experimental Law Variations trialled in this year’s Super 14 for the Tri-Nations and added two extra laws.
One relates to lineout, where teams now don’t have to match the number of players of the team throwing in.
The other allows teams to collapse the maul, a controversial change that has met with resistance, particularly as the law will apply at all levels of the global game from August 1.
Two weeks ago a 20-year-old Argentina player, Juan Cruz Migliore, reportedly suffered a broken neck and died from a collapsed maul during a Buenos Aires premier division game.
The English RFU decreed last month that it would defy the IRB and that the law wouldn’t be employed in any of its age grade rugby competitions for safety reasons.
South African captain John Smit today offered support to the RFU’s stance and questioned the wisdom of the change.
“That kind of rule makes me worry about lower echelon rugby played all around the world,” Smit said.
“We’re probably safest at the top of the pile (test rugby), in terms of playing with good players all the time.”
All Blacks coach Graham Henry was asked if he was concerned about an increased chance of injury.
“Rugby needs to be concerned and I’m sure they’ll keep monitoring those things,” Henry said.
Smit, who has just completed a season for leading French club Clermont, took the chance to question all the law changes being introduced this year.
Having a led a team to World Cup glory last year under the old rules and having witnessed the growing popularity of the game in Europe, he said the changes were potentially needless.
“I thought the rugby was pretty good beforehand. I’ve come from Europe where the old rules are going well, you can’t get a seat in any stadium,” Smit said.
“It’s something I’ll have to experience for the first time on Saturday and after I’ve had a few tests I’ll be able to tell you more but I didn’t think it was broken before.”
© AAP 2012Recommend this story.
July 2nd 2008 @ 10:04am
Lindommer said | July 2nd 2008 @ 10:04am | Report comment
The player died from a broken neck incurred in a collapsing maul? Further investigation might reveal Juan Cruz Migliore died from suffocation resulting from a collapsed ruck.
July 2nd 2008 @ 11:18am
Peter K said | July 2nd 2008 @ 11:18am | Report comment
I like the ELV’s with one significant exception.
I am against pulling down the maul. One reason is the obvious saefty one highlighted, it can cause serious neck injuries.
The other is this makes mauls almost redundant, it is far too easy to collapse a maul, so teams will stop using it. The maul is one viable method to bring in the forwards away from the defensive line. It needs to be retained.
July 2nd 2008 @ 11:32am
Dexter William said | July 2nd 2008 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Peter K
I seem to agree with you more than the other contributors here.
I am with you on this topic. Why would we want Mauls to be pulled down? What advantage would we have? It is not going to slow down the game as long as we have the “use it” rule.
“The maul is one viable method to bring in the forwards away from the defensive line. It needs to be retained.”
Don’t the above rule also suggest that the lineout numbers rule be retained. What if the defending team start to pack out the defensive line even before the lineout?
I believe the S14 ELV is good enough, and these two new ELV laws should be ditched.
July 2nd 2008 @ 1:57pm
Sluggy said | July 2nd 2008 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
The lineout rule is designed to speed the resumption of play and remove a technical rule breach where the defending team has an extra player in – something which can advantage the attacker who have an extra man out wide. The problem is it will be cynically exploited as has been pointed out, if it means you can put less in than the side throwing – but is that what it says? Isn’t it limited to having an extra player in?
As to the mauls, you used to be able to collapse them pre 1991. The no collapsing rule was brought in for safety resaons, and then cynically exploited by teams using the maul as a legalised method of obstruction running. There is currently no legal way to defend against it. The simpler option would be to make it clear that if the defending team breaks all contact with the maul the attackers have to ‘use it’, if they continue to drive into a new defender its a ‘flying wedge’ penalty. I have seen that happen a couple of times, whether the defender intended it was unclear.
July 2nd 2008 @ 2:20pm
Jerry said | July 2nd 2008 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Sluggy – there’s no rule against having less players in the lineout under either the ELVs or under the old rules. What stops teams from doing it now is that it would lead to them being unable to defend a maul with a handful of defenders, but when mauls are able to be collapsed, I think we’ll see teams defending lineouts with only 3 or 4 forwards. They’ll concede possession but will have a league style defensive wall ready to counter any attacking opportunity. Which is another good reason why I don’t like the rule about collapsing mauls.
July 2nd 2008 @ 4:46pm
Sluggy said | July 2nd 2008 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Jerry, I don’t think they’ll do that 5 yards out – even if they collapse one 2 yards out a second immediate drive should go over, if properly executed.
Upfield though, you have a point. At least they are still “E” lvs. I’d rather see the lineout one out and the maul one in. Or some clever coach come up with a way to negate this. Remembering the way the 2001 Lions countered the Brumbieball gameplan by mixing up recycles and driving mauls and counter-rucks. Until Richard Hill was injured, it worked well for that team.
July 2nd 2008 @ 4:50pm
matta said | July 2nd 2008 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
its not just necks… a falling maul can do anything.. wait to you see how many props end up with broken ribs etc…..
for the record – how can creating a pile on speed up the game?
July 2nd 2008 @ 5:03pm
Sluggy said | July 2nd 2008 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
“for the record – how can creating a pile on speed up the game?”
Matta, I don’t think thats the point – by introducing the no collapsing rule a legalised form of obstruction running was accidnetally introduced. They are trying to get rid of that.
July 2nd 2008 @ 5:22pm
Bas said | July 2nd 2008 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
Its about time they changed these rules, they’re so frustrating. Collapsing a mual is a fair way to defend it, if the attacking forward pack is good enough they should be able change the direction of the drive or find another way to hold it up. Getting rid of these rules is sure to speed the game up as there will be fewer of the pedantic penalties that are driving people away from the game.
July 2nd 2008 @ 6:51pm
Sledgeandhammer said | July 2nd 2008 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
While I don’t have a strong opinion either way on this variation, I can’t help but think opposition to it is a beat up. Currently mauls are collapsed in matches all the time, and a penalty is awarded. It is not treated as dangerous play. We have to acknowledge that under current laws mauls do get collapsed. If the collapsed maul is so dangerous, why aren’t players being sent off or suspended as they would if they made a spear tackle?