Lest I be accused of sour grapes, I have chosen the day after the Wallaby win to raise a sore point. The Springboks rolling maul is performed illegally.
Each time they employed it during the Brisbane Tri-Nations test, they had the usual lurker at the back with the ball. Players from in front were leaving the maul and coming in again or simply joining it, but not from the back. They joined on each occasion in front of the player with the ball, thus shoring up the gaps in front of the ball carrier and to each side.
The law is quite clear – any player must join from behind the foot of the hindmost team mate. In each instance, the hindmost player was the ball carrier.
I have watched all of their games since the first Lions test. Not once have they performed a rolling maul legally. The ball carrier unbinds and then rebinds, players join in front of the ball carrier, the pod containing the ball carrier detaches from the pod in front but then rejoins again.
This is all prohibited by the laws.
A rolling maul is difficult enough to defend against without blatant obstruction. It’s alright if you get away with it, and good luck to them for that, but it is just so easy for a referee to see it.
This was glaringly obvious in the Brisbane test.
MM
Guest
Some of the cr*p on here.... Not too difficult...
Jerry G
Guest
No no, I didn't ask "What are you on about?" I asked "What are you on?" I'm not sure what they prescribe for paranoid delusions these days, you see.
MM
Guest
Jerry, It's not too difficult to work out... just check the post above it and the name I'm using - and the subject content.... Riteo ~ enjoy your night / day
Jerry G
Guest
What are you on?
MM
Guest
Charl - do you honestly think you'll get any realistic recognition on this truth of yours? They're not tunnel visioned - or even one-eyed - the majority are blind! Obviously there is a huge problem with the Boks in their worlds because they succumb to the psychological habit of continually mentioning them - that there is a great fear presiding over any team about to play the Boks which they have openly admitted - the players that it, attests to "a problem". Ironically, it's the players who outwit everybody by playing the game and getting on with the next one leaving the fans to argue and debate. It's interesting reading though - plenty of good laughs. Yes I agree with you.
Charl
Guest
Good on you mate...cheers
Charl
Guest
Since we are on the illegal mauling part ..what about our dear old wallabies that was overlooked time and time again in the Brisbane and Perth tests ,with the scrumming where your highly rated prop robinson did not bind at all...i think the springboks are being targeted because we are the trend setters- Proud Bok supporter
Jerry G
Guest
I'd be interested to see if the duration has any material effect. I suspect if you looked at the performance of SA S12/14 teams in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th (and now for some 5th) matches of their tours down under, the winning percentage would not be materially better in the 1st match compared to the 4th. SA teams have struggled to win at all outside the Republic, other than the Sharks and the Bulls and both of them have had some very lean years.
AndyS
Guest
Almost. No-one travels as much as the Force, with even derby games requiring a 7000km round trip. But the SA teams do have the longer stretches away from home at a time - more duration on the road than distance.
Invictus
Guest
Sadly, the pennies won't stretch that far at the moment.
Loftus
Guest
QC If you washed the sleep out your eyes you will probably realise that the South African teams have to travel twice as much as the Aussies and Kiwi teams.If they go on a tour they have to play up to 4 games away from home on the trot.What exactly is your problem then? Each team have to play the same amount of home and away games.If the Bulls play 4 games on the trot at home it will only mean that at some point they will have to play loads of away games on the trot. We will forgive you for your dumb statements because you re obviously new to the sport.Stupid post full stop.
MM
Guest
QC, Knives out only gave you back your own wording - very precisely too - and at that point your last reply was a real give-up one. He's got a point - one can comment without resorting to mud-slinging in an attempt to back up their opinion.
Knives Out
Guest
If the defensive side disengages can an offensive player simply grab the jersey of a defensive player and therefore start a maul, Jerry?
David
Guest
I was referring to the original poster who titled his article "The Springbok rolling maul" but then fails to distinguish the Springbok rolling maul from any other. The point here is that I haven't seen any evidence of the Springboks employing an illegal technique. The disruption at the 40s mark was the illegal activity by the Lions that the referee gave the initial penalty for. It was part of a maul action and my understanding is that the referee would have the discretion to play advantage in the manner he did - i.e. allow the maul to "re-form". Referee's discretion in these cases is quite wide. In any event, no advantage was actually given. The Springboks were called back to that point. More importantly, arguing that the Springboks have an illegal technique is hardly proved by finding a situation where an opposing player illegally mandhandles a Springbok player so that he is partially out of the maul.
Knives Out
Guest
'Another tirade and more mud slinging' Oh really? You see mud slinging I see a complete lack of insults (ergo mudslinging), logical argument and reasonable prose. Troll somehwere else, Hemjay.
Jerry G
Guest
"The Springboks immediately reform the illegally disrupted maul. Advantage was awarded" If a team commits a penalty offence (by 'reforming' a maul in an illegal manner for instance) when they've got the advantage, the ref should call advantage over. And I'm not saying the Boks are doing it any different than anyone else - in fact I said this "(though it’s not just the Boks that do it)" in the first sentence of my first post in this thread.
David
Guest
Perhaps you could post a screenshot of the offside you are talking about. I watched that video again and Matfield always joins the maul from behind or in line with the feet of the last man. Regarding the incident at the 40 second mark, watch from 40 seconds to 42 seconds. Watch the referee's arm. The Lions player, in an offside position, grabs the Springbok around the neck and pulls him off his binding. The Springboks immediately reform the illegally disrupted maul. Advantage was awarded. Once the penalty was given (at 1:11), notice where it was given - at the point the maul was disrupted. The Springboks were taken back to this point. There are 3 refs on the field, a bunch of refs who have checked these incidents on video and knowledgeable commentators saying the mauling is exemplary and legal. The original post incorrectly cites the law both on the offside rule and the binding rule. Before you say that all of these people are wrong, I'd expect some clear evidence of illegal mauling. More importantly, if only Springbok mauling is illegal, then show what the Springboks are doing differently to everyone else.
Jerry G
Guest
Also, if done in a lineout, the defending team has to be very careful not to leave the lineout before it's over.
QC
Guest
Nothing short of what i expected from you, Another tirade and more mud slinging not to mention accusations of being someone else.
Jerry G
Guest
"Either you comply or you don’t." Yeah, I acknowledged they came in legally that time. But you can see how they could very easily come in ahead of the ball in a similar situation, right? "Also, note that the rule has nothing to do with joining behind the ball carrier. The offsides lines run through the feet of the last man not the ball carrier." Good point. Hadn't thought of that - in that case the Bok 7 joins illegally as he joins in front of the last man's foot. Thanks! Matfield joins the maul in front of the ball carrier (hence the hindmost foot) - just brushing past him with an arm is not binding on the the maul. And he does bind in front, rather than alongside. "I don’t see a problem there." You don't see a problem with having 3 or 4 Boks in a separate formation in front of a maul?