Surely there are others who spend an inordinate amount of time pondering the laws and mechanics of the rolling maul, looking for a way to counter it – legally.
My stomach drops whenever I see the Boks or the ABs employ this option. The prospect of the Wallabies confronting it in the up-coming series literally keeps me awake at night. Knowing that Robbie Deans may have something in mind is no comfort. Even if he does there will still be suffering.
So, what actually can be done?
Start with the definition: ‘A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.’ Source IRB Laws 2009.
The mini-maul, in open field play, following a stand-up encounter between ball carrier and opponent (not a ‘tackle’) with at least one teammate from either team involved is normally readily converted to a tackle by bringing the ball carrier to the ground or bringing the ball out and moving on.
The highly problematic rolling maul requires the presence of enough players and organisation to keep the ball carrier on his/her feet and the conscious, tactical intent to move the ball forward as a group. The lineout with all its legal niceties would seem to provide all the elements for this ‘perfect play’ or ‘perfect nightmare’ depending on your perspective – or does it?
Actually, it appears to me that collectively, we have assumed a lot and failed to do our homework. If (a very big IF) the applicable Laws are applied (rather than some vague traditional dispensations/interpretations) there may be both simple and technically challenging solutions to the conundrum that is the rolling maul.
Consider this. Players at the Lineout are not actually required to:
• contest the throw-in
• attempt to prevent the ball winner from advancing forward with the ball
While not doing these two things may be counter intuitive to most players (certainly in the second case) and entail risk, these points warrant very serious consideration as the collective Achilles Heel in the tactical use of the rolling maul. How so?
Consider this match illustration:
Situation – Lineout is formed
1. Team A has a lineout on the 50m line. Confident of their lineout supremacy (ABs or Boks) they prepare to take the ball, form a maul and drive downfield
2. Team B anticipates losing the ball and the Team A’s ensuing maul
3. Team A wins the ball uncontested and attempts to form a maul
4. Team B commits no players but they correctly stay at the line-of-touch while moving away from the opponent’s cluster of players – thus there is no applicable Law (in particular for off-side) other than those for the lineout in general
5. Team A drives forward in formation but without opposition but its cluster of players does not meet the requirements for a formed maul
6. Team A’s non-maul almost instantly leaves the line-of-touch and, importantly, ends the lineout.
Situation now – open play
1. Team A’s players are now variously off-side and/or obstructing opponents from reaching the ball carrier
2. Team B’s players are now free to attack the now illegally protected ball carrier since there are no lineout or open play off-side provisions to restrict their movement
3. Team A without opposition must break up or run the risk of a number of full arm penalties – not least because they must now allow opponents clear access to the ball carrier
In principle this tactic seems a viable option to an energy sapping, maul contest on the opponent’s terms. It is likely to result in the loss of a few meters of space – but no more than a heads up rapid retreat to prepare for a quick tap penalty (rather routine stuff). The initial uncontested forward movement is also just as likely to result in the attackers being penalized for obstruction or the use of a ‘truck-and-trailer’ formation.
One of the more obvious problems in executing this would be having unwilling defenders dragged into the so-called maul to create a semblance of legitimacy. Referees should be asked to police this. Another scenario where the ball carrier breaks loose can be dealt with by an ankle tackle to eliminate any potential to form a maul. Yes they can pass the ball but having defeated the rolling maul, open play is far less problematic.
As is always the case there are important distinctions to be made in terms of where on the pitch to apply any approach. In this case taking a risk on allowing a ball winner at a lineout inside the 10m line to turn and run unopposed may not be seen as a good tactic. However, when there is the prospect of being driven 20-30m by a well organized opponent, there may be very good value to refining this approach. If it is the defending team’s throw-in and winning is their own ball is problematic, a minimum number of players in the line-out is a starting point. There are other options.
I have a few other ‘law aware’ ideas. For the moment this one should be enough to attract some well intended efforts to disabuse me of my ‘misguided’ ideas and perhaps ad some value to the discussion. One request: if you don’t actually have a bloody clue what the current Laws say – do us all a favour…thank you.
ozxile
Roar Pro
Sharminator: I have read it several times. It does not say what you insist is there. If it did, why does NOTE 2 even exist? The wording, 'and the defenders drop off the maul, prior to the maul reaching the goal line, as they are unable to stop the driving maul' makes no distinction between voluntary and involuntary and specifically states 'as they are unable to stop the driving maul'. Why exactly does it also say that ' the team in possession should not be penalized for obstruction if they then immediately enter the in-goal area and ground the ball'. Because if they don't enter the in-goal and ground the ball they will ..what? It is your reference not mine. What does it say? If you really try hard you can probably answer the question - can't you? Here is a clue. It says that they will be .......? YOU CAN DO IT. Alternatively, you can try this. They will not be pe_ _ _ _zed (fill in the blanks) for ob_ _ _ _ _tion (fill in the blanks) IF they 'immediately enter the in-goal area and ground the ball.' Apparently something bad will happen if they don't. And that would be? For? Repeatedly citing the same passage(s) you've become attached to and overlooking the obvious will not make it correct. If you have correctly filled in the blanks above you may have noticed that the US document does not say what you assert it does. Bummer! Here is your fall back position - it isn't THE authority anyway so who cares what it really says. As I suggested earlier - find something authoritative from the IRB. Finally, your ill-tempered and puerile aspersions about my reading and comprehension abilities and refereeing skills do prove something - but not about me.
Sharminator
Guest
Pleassseeeeeee Oxile ... like I said in my earlier posts ... READ THE DETAIL. You seem to have problem doing this. NOTE 1 and NOTE 2 IN THE US DOCUMENT PERTAIN TO B 2 ... which is about players INVOLUNTARILY leaving the maul. They do no pertain to B1 "If a maul has formed,and moving forward, and the defenders leave the maul voluntarily, the team in possession should not be penalized for obstruction, as the maul continues." As noted earlier the LAWS OF THE GAME say the very same thing ... (f) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the team in possession at the maul. Penalty: Penalty Kick (g) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, players of that team may rejoin the maul providing that the first player binds on the foremost player of the team in possession of the ball. Penalty: Penalty Kick The maul continues when all defenders voluntarily leave the maul. Obstruction does not exist as the maul continues and a maul is not obstruction. The maul ends if the atacking players leave the maul with the ball, or go to ground, or if the ball becomes visible to the refereee and is at the back of the maul he may call for attackers to play the ball or face an obstruction penalty. There is nothing else to say. Continue with your wacky interpretations and hope no one ever has the displeasure of having you referee their games.
ozxile
Roar Pro
Sharminator: The interpretation that you advocate is nonsense. If it is not cleared up here it will eventually be clarified by the IRB - precisely because it is totally inconsistent with the intent of the game. f you follow through with your rigid logic that 'rugby is a contest' implies that a team must contest the ball in a maul, you should also include jumping for the ball in a lineout (which is not considered unsporting the last time I checked), or pushing but not hooking for the ball on your tight head, or letting the ball roll dead instead of running it out of your own in-goal, perhaps conversion kicks should also be charged - just because they could be stopped. Well coached teams and smart players will always avoid doing what plays to the strength of the opposition for tactical reasons. Furthermore rugby is not and never has been a contest restricted to the realms of physical strength and skill, it also involves brains and taking some risk. Clearly abandoning a maul involves considerable risk to the defending team. Doing so is not 'unsporting' as you seem hung up on. However, it should not mean the attackers immediately receive a penalty as I noted earlier. They deserve a chance to adjust and disperse. If you received penalties you either took too long or your referees are pedants or simply not very good. The opposition's abandonment of the maul it most certainly does not license an attacking 'maul' to just continue on down the pitch, any more than an uncontested lineout gives the winning side license to just stand there and celebrate at the line of touch - they will have to play on because there is no such thing as an endless lineout either. NOTE 2 in the US document (assuming anyone cares) makes it very clear that there had better be a goal line in sight and the ball grounded soon after the maul is abandoned or there will be liability for obstruction penalty. What you thought you heard and your local refs interpret is simply not correct. Anecdotal accounts are irrelevant. However, if you are so sure of what you advance here and claim to be IRB interpretation, show us something that actually says a maul abandoned by the opposition can continue indefinitely even without opposition. Seriously, show us the IRB support for it - not something from anyone else. I for one am very interested to see it - if it exists. Nothing presented anywhere in this series of posts by you, me or anyone else does. Remember IRB nothing else. Cheers.
Sharminator
Guest
Again you are taking a small statement and extrapolating as in your first post. Statement 2 2. is about "If defenders leave the maul involuntarily". In other words, if as the maul goes forward, defenders "fall off" or are pushed out of the way. If this happens the referee should tell the attackers to get the ball out of the maul, and if they dont penalise them for obstruction. Law 17 (f)and (g) which I mentioned earlier are specifically about players voluntarily leaving the maul. It is up to the referee to determine whether the defenders left the maul voluntarily or involuntarily, but if the referee judges that the defenders voluntarily left the maul, as a defensive tactic, the maul continues. It can continue moving forward until the ball becomes clealy visible to the referee at the back of the maul, probably in sole posession of the player with the hindmost feet. At this point the refereee can call for the attacking team to "use it", either get the ball out of the maul or be penalised for obstruction. Earlier this year in the lead up to playing some tests for my country we had a 2 hour discussion with a top IRB referee to clarify any doubts we had about the laws and this was one of the issues that he went through, with the same interpretation that I have explained here. In the competition that I play in we have also been told exactly the same thing by local referees. The USA rugby document for 2009 that I mentioned above also supports this interpretation. From your posts, I think you seem to be trying to find reasons to argue why a maul should not be allowed to continue if players leave voluntarily. According to the laws of the game, and what IRB and local referees have said me about interpreting the laws, if a defending team voluntarily withdraws the maul continues, it is not obstruction, as long as the ball stays inside the maul. As a player I completely support this interpretation. The reason why is because rugby is meant to be a contest for posession. I remember a few years ago the worst team in my league started voluntarily withdrawing whenever a maul started, and my team got penalised several times. It seemed ridiculous, and inherantly "unsporting" that a weaker team could get a penalty by deliberately deciding to withdraw from the contest and not challenge for the ball. The point of these laws and interpretations around a team withdrawing from a maul is that a defending team should not get any benefit from withdrawing voluntarily from a maul, after it has started. In other words defenders in a maul should try to contest the maul push back, by leaving the maul team will gain no advantage. The idea that rugby should be a contest is the basis of the addition of 17 (f) and (g) to the laws of the game, and of the interpretation that has been communicated in various forms to me.
ozxile
Roar Pro
Sharminator. not whatever, sorry.
ozxile
Roar Pro
Sarminator, I appreciate the discussion. As you put it, ‘not to be pedantic’ they are Laws, not ‘rules’ which you suggest it would be good for me to ‘read in detail.’ I will pass on making a suggestion for you. Lets try to be clear here. It is possible to read what you have written (and provided nominal support for) and conclude that a maul, formed correctly, does not end when defenders all leave voluntarily. You are correct only in the sense that the referee should not immediately penalize the team with the ball for obstruction. (Note: this situation is quite different from not forming a maul at all by declining engagement at the outset - the issue that I used to start this discussion.) I have clipped what you refer to from the document you cited. It is hardly definitive, but read as a whole it does not end up supporting what you contend. You support your conclusion with sentence two (2) in Part 1. However, read on to NOTE 2: and you find the interesting qualification that ‘the team in possession should not be penalized for obstruction if they then immediately enter the in-goal area and ground the ball.’ B. Joining/Leaving/Ending the Maul 1. A maul is only over, when a player carrying the ball, or the ball, leaves the maul, or if a ruck forms (ball carrier or ball goes to ground), not when all the defenders leave the maul voluntarily. If a maul has formed,and moving forward, and the defenders leave the maul voluntarily, the team in possession should not be penalized for obstruction, as the maul continues. Defenders who then join the maul again, should do so from the last line of feet. 2. If defenders leave the maul involuntarily as they attempt an unsuccessful pull-down or are unable to remain bound, and there are no more defenders attached to the maul, the maul is over and the team in possession should not continue to move forward with their players bound around the ball, as this may constitute obstruction. Referees are to communicate that the maul is over. NOTE 1: If the team in possession to not comply with the referees request that the maul is over, and remain bound around the ball carrier they should be penalized. PK NOTE 2: If a maul is moving towards the goal line, and the defenders drop off the maul, prior to the maul reaching the goal line, as they are unable to stop the driving maul, the team in possession should not be penalized for obstruction if they then immediately enter the in-goal area and ground the ball. There are numerous precedents in the Laws for not awarding a penalty for something that is defacto illegal if circumstances arise in the course of play and the player or players involved cease immediately, e.g., holding the ball in a tackle, retiring from and offside position, adjusting a tackle off of a nominally high position, etc. This very practical dispensation is appropriate and essential to having a match that is not stopped every 15 seconds for a technical infraction. What NOTE 2 does here is make it very clear that one side’s withdrawal (voluntarily) does not result in an ‘immediate’ penalty. However, they will be penalized if they do not immediately enter in-goal and ground the ball. Whatever the statement in P1. sentence 2. is meant to say it does not mean that an abandoned maul has an independent and indefinite life. Unless you can find an IRB statement to the contrary I’d say it is just nonsense. There is no logic or Law that supports obstruction in rugby and a group of players protecting the ball is obstruction – unless of course those very specific circumstances apply and they are about to ground the ball in-goal. Reading the Laws is a necessary but not sufficient condition to understanding how they apply in context. Until fairly recently a weekly reading of the Laws and Notes was part of my routine – before going out to apply them in context. I also spent a fair number of years on the national committee that prepares the very notes to which you refer. Ask yourself, as a referee how long would you let an abandoned maul (regardless of where the ball is located) continue to move forward considering that just an accidental obstruction will draw a penalty?
Sharminator
Guest
Hi Ozxile, Sorry to be pedantic, but I am not alleging anything. I am referring to the rules of rugby, which it would be good for you to read in detail. IRB rulings can be a bit confusing sometimes as they relate to very very specific situations. The problem is, you have taken a question from the RFU, which is a clarification of a very very specific situation, and extrapolated it to refer to mauls in general. This is incorrect. "A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents (Team B) back towards their own goal line with the ball being clearly visible at the rear of the maul, all the defending side (Team B) bound to the maul voluntarily exit the maul, has the maul successfully concluded or is the maul still active?" The key phrase in this ruling is "THE BALL BEING CLEARLY VISIBLE AT THE REAR OF THE MAUL". The only way the ball could be clearly visible at the rear of the maul is if only one player, the hindmost player, is in sole posesssion of the ball. If one player, not the hindmost, had the ball (for example) in his stomach and the hindmost player was ripping it, the ball would not be clearly visible. The aim of the ruling you mentioned is to stop the famous Neil Back truck and trailer, where the last players was in complete posession of the ball ... with the ball clearly visible ... and only an arm attaching him to the maul. In this case the rest of the maul was really being used as a shield. What the ruling is saying is that if the ball is in the posession of the last player in the maul and is clearly visible there is no longer any maul and a defender may tackle the hindmost player in the manner the Italy players did in the youtube video (although remember in this situation from a line there was no maul to begin with). If you look speficically at the Laws of Rugby, in the maul law, law 17, parts (f) and (g) specifically concerns players leaving the maul voluntarily. This is avaible at http://www.irb.com/mm/Document/LawsRegs/0/Law17EN_7695.pdf and is current as of today. Here is the relevant part: (f) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the team in possession at the maul. Penalty: Penalty Kick (g) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, players of that team may rejoin the maul providing that the first player binds on the foremost player of the team in possession of the ball. Penalty: Penalty Kick In other words, if the ball is somewhere inside the maul (the hindmost player is not in sole posession) the maul may continue forever as long as it is moving forward .... even if the opposition withdraw voluntarily. If the hindmost player is in the process of ripping the ball from a player in front of him, or if two players have their bodies around the ball .. the ball would not clearly visible or at the rear of the maul and the oppositionless maul can continue, but if the ball is clearly visible at the back of the maul ... probably in sole posession of one player .. we have general play. Here is a 2009 plain english explanation from USA rugby: A maul is only over, when a player carrying the ball, or the ball, leaves the maul, or if a ruck forms (ball carrier or ball goes to ground), not when all the defenders leave the maul voluntarily. If a maul has formed, and moving forward, and the defenders leave the maul voluntarily, the team in possession should not be penalized for obstruction, as the maul continues. Defenders who then join the maul again, should do so from the last line of feet. http://www.pru.org/media/EDocs/USA_Rugby_Game_Management_Guidelines_2009.pdf Hope the clarifies it ....
ozxile
Roar Pro
Sharminator, I am curious about the substance of two of your posts here. You said initially (30/6 @ 3:19) that the ‘ the IRB changed the rules so that what starts as a maul continues to be a maul even if one sides players withdraws’. You repeated it yesterday. To which ruling are you referring? The following from the IRB website is a ruling dated September 24, 2008, does not really support what you allege it to say. Ruling: 4: 2008 The RFU has requested a ruling relating to Law 17 A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents (Team B) back towards their own goal line with the ball being clearly visible at the rear of the maul, all the defending side (Team B) bound to the maul voluntarily exit the maul, has the maul successfully concluded or is the maul still active? Law 17 Maul, Definition A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended. The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question raised: The maul has not successfully concluded and it is not still active. As the players of the team not in possession have all left the maul the maul ceases to exist and has not ended successfully or unsuccessfully as determined by the definition of a maul. The maul has ceased to exist and the ball is now in open play and the relevant Laws apply. The ruling actually says that the maul 'has not successfully concluded' and 'it is not still active'. The maul 'has ceased to exist'. This is essentially a collective existential brain explosion on the part of the 'Designated Members.' That said, this mumbo jumbo certainly does not lead to the conclusion that the maul continues after all opposition withdraw. I disappears and as the ruling clearly (really) states, 'the ball is now in open play'. I cannot find anything more recent.
Sharminator
Guest
there is also a law against the flying wedge .... a V shaped formation by one team as you described with the ball being carried at the front of the v ...
Sharminator
Guest
If you are dribbling the ball there is a new offside line each time the ball is dribbled and any player from your team in front of the dribbler is offside. So ... Penalty against your team. In terms of picking up and putting down the ball ... in both cases you talk about it is simply general play .. remember there is no opposition ... so there is no ruck or maul .. so there is nothing to stop any opposition player from coming around the back and entering the V to simply pick up the ball, whether the team in posession is dribbling, picking up or putting down the ball. Also remember that there are different forms of evacuation ... if the opposition do not engage ... there is no maul .. but if a maul formed .. and the opposition then decide evacuate ... the IRB´s ruling is that the maul continues as it started as a maul .. so if the opposition choose not to contest this is unstoppable.
Sharminator
Guest
Looking at the Italy tactic sometimes it works ... in the first two instances of the clip ... Italy manages to get a penalty or scrum ... but in the last one scotland form the maul ...an italian comes around the back of the non-maul to tackle, but when Scotland realise there is no opposition a scottish player breaks and as no italians are in front of the maul he manages to make a 10m untouched ... For a team like Italy its an ok risk, but for Australia Its a hell of a risk to take in the hope of getting a penalty or scrum .. I wouldnt want to try this tactic with Spies or Macaw waiting with ball in hand to charge through if no maul forms. Also if teams are aware of the tactic they can simply charge forward gaining easy metres without opposition and getting great platform of quick, uncontested ruck ball for their backs. As a prop, in my experience the best way to stop a maul is to stop it as it starts. The maul isnt unstoppable, but it is very hard to stop once it gets momentum. The best option is therefore to all push it back or towards the sideline, if you push harder than the opposition the maul will sometimes collapse and you might gain a scrum. Another tactic, especially from a line, is to get a player to look for the ball with his hands, and, if he is stronger that the opposition gain posession. As the ball is the offside line in the maul, if you come in to the maul correctly and actually manage to get your hands on the ball you are the offside line, i´ve done this a few times, come out the oppositions side of the maul in posession of the ball and made easy metres while the opposition all complain of offside.
Greg Smith
Guest
Jerry - you're right, but I can see it working in 'theory' although it would be easier to draw, rather than explain Just remember - this is ONLY in non-engagement scenario's From a truck and trailer - (where opposition 'evacuate') 1. Put the ball on the ground 2. Forwards 'fan' around left and right towards the back 3. 9 picks up the ball 4. Forwards bind in a V 5. Drive normally This tactic involves varying between truck & trailer - ruck - drive ... Eventually the opposition would be forced to rejoin the drive... at which point a trained team could just go back into the truck and trailer... repeat 1,2,3,4,5 + truck and trailer until you're over the line ! What's the law when you 'dribble' the ball in a drive ? The ball is on the ground...
Sharminator
Guest
Nice article ... its always interesting when people come up with new ideas about how to get around the laws. A few years ago teams started withdrawing from mauls if they were getting pushed around ...by the lawbook a maul consisted of players from both sides .. and thus by withdrawing the mauls turned into obstruction and the mauling team got penalised ... but the IRB changed the rules so that what starts as a maul continues to be a maul even if one sides players withdraws.
Jerry
Guest
Greg - the problem with that is: 1 - if the ball is at the front, the opposition can dive on it (and the players in the quasi-maul will likely fall over the top and be pinged for diving over the top) 2 - if the ball is in the pocket you are talking about, it'd would still be illegal for the players in front of the ball to engage the opposition. It would effectively be tackling them without the ball, just as if they'd pulled them from behind chasing a kick.
Mike
Guest
The rolling maul has been underwhelming in the last three Wallaby tests. Neither the French or Italians seemed to get anywhere with it, and they are both well rated in that area. The Wallabies rarely used it. Maybe the ABs and Bokke will be better at it than the Azzuri and Bleus, we will find out shortly I guess. Energy sapping is all very well, but it saps the attackers too. I was mystified as to why the Barbarians in Sydney formed a rolling maul deep in their own half.
Greg Smith
Guest
Jerry - it would be difficult, true. But I can think of workable ways to make it legal and successful. 1. Drive with ball in front of player 1 in the drive 2. Or form a little pocket ahead of 'foot control guy' and work forward with deft small dribbles (remember this is ONLY for instances of 'non-engagement' - when the opposition engage, you're back to truck n trailer ?)
Jerry
Guest
Greg - wouldn't it be very hard to stop the ball from hitting a player in front when toed ahead? As soon as it did, the ref would blow up for accidental offside and give a scrum to the other team.
Greg Smith
Guest
To counter your proposed maneovre: In a protective 'cluster' -if you go and simply drop the ball to the ground and employ small kicks while driving forward, then varying it by picking up and putting down the ball again (when the opposition go for the ball on the ground) you could be absolutely unstoppable without obstruction or breaking the Laws ? If the opposition don't engage the maul. Rule of thumb... put the ball on the ground and sort your attacking position out, neaten up and strengthen your driving pack too. The advantage the non-engaging team might wish to gain will be outweighed by the numerous advantages the attacking team can set up by employing there time effectively. Packing the backline and composing an outnumbering scenario. By evolving and revolving the 'truck n trailer' with variations like - ball in hand, ball on the ground, stop, form up, ball on ground, drive, ball in hand... and continue... your 'non-engage' maneovre would backfire ? no ?
ozxile
Roar Pro
Bigjezza, Thanks for the reference. The Italians do seem to have this worked out. They give up about 5m to accomplish what all the energy sapping pushing probably would never accomplish. The idea that any team would willingly play to another team's strength has no currency at all. If your lineout isn't working you try to keep the ball in play. If your opponent has deadly kickers, avoid kickable penalties and do your best to prevent drop goal opportunities. Everyon likes good attacking rugby and good defensive rugby. However, by definition they define each other. The ELV to allow pulling down mauls was a thoroughly ill-conceived attempt to add some variation and perhaps some parity to the maul situation. What the Italians have done actually does what we should want to see in all areas of the game - add some variation. If the Italians had done this in their match against the ABs on Saturday they might well have scored a couple tries. They were close in several times but tried to maul with the ABs. Given the ABs' frustration on the day they would have been easily caught off guard. While I do think that protracted rolling mauls are about as interesting as sumo wrestling I didn't start this thread to criticize the play. I'd just like to have more to look for in this area of the game than we do most of the time right now,
Grandpabhaile
Guest
Great to see it back in the game.