- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Rugby has made a credible attempt to fix scrums recently, now it’s time to turn our attention to mauls.
The way mauls are refereed and executed currently is messy, random and verging on preventing one of the most important pillars of rugby: contested possession.
Before I lay out how to fix the problems, I want to emphasise that point. One of the most fundamental aspects of rugby and one that makes the game great is the notion of the ball being in a state of contested possession for as much time as possible.
Scrums are fed from the middle because even during a restart we want a contest of sorts. A lineout throw must run down the middle because we want a contest at an out of bounds restart too. Rugby has rucks and asks the tackled player to place the ball, not a play-the-ball, because even after a tackle the opposition should still have a shot at winning the ball back.
Isolated players at the back kick the ball because they know at any time the ball may be taken from them.
Contested possession is one of the reasons rugby rewards teamwork and support play in such a unique way. Some players run the ball only a couple of times each half but are vital to their side’s chances because they protect the ball in rucks and pressure the opposition’s ball.
It is with that in mind that I address the maul and its current problems.
I leaving this thought out, because I don’t want to drown out my ideas to fix the maul, but I’ll throw it out there. If I were to identify one area of rugby that hinders contested possession I would nominate the maul.
That doesn’t mean I want it gone, I enjoyed the maul as a player and appreciate them as a spectator, but it means we need to get it right to uphold the qualities of the game that make it great.
Here are some ideas that would go some way to clear up the maul.
1. Stop the sliding past the ball carrier technique
This is the most obvious change that should be simple. Like the scrum changes we enacted, this is simply, “let’s go back to how we used to do it.”
Currently law interpretations and referees allow players from the team in possession to join the back of the maul and slide past the ball carrier into a more advanced position.
When the ball is being passed to the back of the maul, or new people join the back of the maul, the ball should be physically shifted through hands, rather than allowing people to join and slide past the man with the ball.
A maul, by its very nature, almost removes contested possession for a period of play. And giving players permission to ‘slide’ past the ball carrier – are players water molecules now? Surely as they go past they are effectively unbinding and then rebinding for all intents and purposes? – is allowing obstruction. We are letting new players join the maul in a position that obstructs the opposition from getting to the ball.
When a player takes the ball into contact and then a maul is formed, let them pass the ball back. The advantage is a true multiple-man unit that may push the opposition backwards as a reward for executing the skill. Allowing people to join and ‘slide’ permits obstruction and removes the skill and co-operation a maul is intended to reward.
2. Don’t penalise the opposition for not engaging in a maul
Let’s start with the most obvious one from the weekend, one that cost the Blues the game. A penalty was blown against the Blues, just inside their defensive 22 after the Cheetahs formed a maul from a lineout.
Here’s the technical problem with the referee’s call – the only player who retreated from the lineout was the halfback, and therefore shouldn’t have been penalised. The rest of the players shuffled along the lineout line, leaving a gap for the Cheetahs to go through.
Here’s the simple problem with the referee’s call – the Cheetahs formed a maul before coming into contact with a Blues player.
The lineout throw is caught by Teboho Mohoje, he turns and hands the ball off on connection with the ground and two players bind on to him and form a three-man wall in front of the ball – stop.
Not only were the Cheetahs obstructing as a pack of six forwards scuttled through the gap in the Blues lineout, they formed via an obstruction.
Overall, the defence is not obliged to form a maul on behalf of the attacking team, it is the team in possession that need to meet those requirements.
3. Punish obstructions and truck and trailer mauls
If you have not already come into contact with an opposition player and form a wall in front of the ball after handing it off, you’ve put players offside and obstructed the defence.
This isn’t just a problem in the particular instance of the Blues and Cheetahs lineout. Teams form a maul before coming into contact with the opposition after a lineout throw all the time. Most mauls are formed from lineouts because it’s hard to do so in open play. However, just because it’s a lineout doesn’t mean the fundamental rules don’t apply.
Truck and trailer, whatever you want to call it, the Brumbies had infringed at least three times before Scott Higginbotham pulled down the maul that earned him a yellow card on Saturday night.
Rory Arnold takes the lineout and is sacked immediately but hands off to Jarrod Butler, who hasn’t bound to Arnold yet. Butler has two players who jump in front of him and obstruct. What a mess but the ref lets it go.
Then about three Brumbies fall to the ground in front of the maul but get up and stay on the front instead of joining from the back again.
The maul then moves downfield and about three or four metres before Higginbotham sacks it Scott Fardy, in the second or third last position in the train depending on what you define as bound, uncouples and then re-joins.
That is the very definition of a truck and trailer. If you don’t want to call the earlier problems truck and trailer then they’re just obstruction.
After all this, we’re still expecting the defending team to not break any law, or even appear to, or they’ll feel the wrath of the ref. Higginbotham sacks it and he’s off the field.
The Brumbies end up scoring from the next lineout/maul drive over the line. Fair’s fair, right?
4. The team with the ball should also be penalised for collapsing the maul
I’m getting a bit picky here, but when the punishment for collapsing the maul on the first occasion for Scott Higginbotham was a yellow card I think it’s fair that the team in possession also be expected to uphold basic rules.
So often a team in a maul will stuff up, collapse it and then roll the ball out the back only for the ref to say “it’s a ruck”. Why give another advantage, unwarranted, to the team in possession here? Ref it both ways.
5. When a defender has joined from the back of the maul and then the team in possession roll the maul, if the defender hasn’t detached at any point, he’s not offside
Pet hate here. Referees can’t see everything at all times and need the help of assistant referees to make sure they don’t stuff this up I think.
So often a defender has joined the maul from the back and then the team in possession roll the maul in either direction. At that point it looks like the defender is on the side of the maul – because he is. However, the law isn’t about where you end up, its where you join.
If the attacking team roll the maul and it puts the defender in a position to reach the ball, it shouldn’t be the defender penalised, because they aren’t actually offside.
None of these fixed are removing the maul, they are merely asking for proper and fair execution of the skill. A successful maul rewards the team in possession but a poor one will not.
If these fixes make it slightly easier to defend the maul that is only because the current state of play is unbalanced because referees aren’t applying the laws even-handedly.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.