Lose the maul, kill the game?
Roar Guru By Tim, 9 Jul 2008 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- England, lineout, ruck, Rugby Union, rules, Test match, wallabies
I can see the arguments against the maul, but very few team execute the strategy effectively and efficiently. If it was so easy, then why is this the case?
The last truly dominant maul I saw was by one of the better tight forward units that has played international rugby in the last 20 years: England versus Australia in 2003 at Melbourne when they moved the Wallabies back 45m.
However, despite that being a significant part of their game plan, they were unable to execute the same move again for more than 5-10 metres in the remainder of the match because Australia competed, and it’s really hard to put all the moving pieces in place to get an effective maul working.
So I fail to see that the maul removes the ability to create a contest in the reality of modern test matches.
Having coached, albeit at a low level, in Australia and seen teams scoring many tries through the maul and then through the backs when the maul forces more defenders inside, it seems to me that it can be used to open the game up. But that’s a decision for the players not the administrators.
Surely we should not be left with a game where there is only one effective strategy to win.
Rugby enjoys a number of strategies in its current rules. Not all are attractive to some but all are currently legal and make for different body shapes and skills to be successful within the game.
Much of the issue with the ruck is that it’s a static event usually involving two-three attacking players but often one defender. Therefore, the defence outweighs the offence making it hard to gain ground, set up a quick maul, breach the line and suck defenders in. The equation then moves to the attackers’ favour as the defence needs to cover the fringes in close but the offside line is moving backwards so when the wide pass is made by the half, there will be space for the outside backs to attack either one on one or cause mismatches or even possibly an overlap.
I fail to see how removing the maul will increase attacking play as there will be more defenders than
attackers, and if that continues then maybe we should remove some players to create space.
I’ll be interested to see what occurs over the next few years, but I’m sure that in five years or so we’ll be talking about too many players and no need for a scrum or a lineout.
I shall await without much optimism if this is where rugby’s administrators are taking the game with the assistance of the press, none of whom seem ready to explore the idea that there is good in the current game and its flaws are also part of its appeal to many.
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- England, lineout, ruck, Rugby Union, rules, Test match, wallabies
July 14th 2008 @ 9:11am
Longy said | July 14th 2008 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Ben referees should always insist the ball goes in the middle of the scrum. If they don’t, the scrum becomes a joke and the art of a tight head win will dissapear. Rugby should always be about competing for the ball more so than scoring points.
Some time ago I witnessed a Joey’s game v a touring NZ schholboys team. There were hardly any points but the game went from one end of the field to the other with possession changing hands. It was on of the best games I have seen.
Great skills, excellent discipline, fast and flowing. Who won? … rugby of course!
July 14th 2008 @ 9:21am
Benjamin said | July 14th 2008 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Longy, it’s a shame that so many fans think that points equal prizes. That isn’t necessarily what rugby is about. Good point, I agree with you.
I think the scrum has become a little bit of a joke simply due to inadequate refereeing. I think all touch judges should be ex props who played at a high calibre. Glen Jackson is a committed amateur ref, I think it would be good to get ex pros involved.
July 15th 2008 @ 10:22am
Justin said | July 15th 2008 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Interesting point re the scrum and feeds. I am not sure what the current rule is but in the past you were not allowed to ‘spin’ the ball into the scrum which is exactly what I witnessed at Wallaby training a few weeks ago as Burgess and the hooker got their combination and timing together. Down the middle and may the best “hooker” of the ball win.
July 15th 2008 @ 10:37am
Benjamin said | July 15th 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
No referees in any competition worldwide whistle on crooked feeds. Every ball is straight into the 2nd rowers legs which comically sometimes leads to the ball bouncing back out of the scrum, and catching the back row unawares. It’s outrageous that nothing is ever done about it by the IRB.
July 19th 2008 @ 2:06am
callum said | July 19th 2008 @ 2:06am | Report comment
this is the one ELV law that should be killed, people love to see the maul and if thats not enough there was someone in argentina how died because of a collapsed maul under ELV laws. theres enough potential dangers on a rugby filed, ie improper scrums. this is the only ELV that i dont like, everything else is brilliant