The NSW Waratahs are determined to stop the Brumbies’ lethal attacking maul before it gets rolling in Friday’s Super Rugby Australian conference showdown in Canberra.
The conference-leading Brumbies used the tactic to devastating effect against the Highlanders last weekend, with openside flanker David Pocock scoring three first-half tries off unstoppable rolling mauls after lineouts.
Waratahs and former Brumbies forward Mitchell Chapman concedes the Brumbies’ key weapon is extremely difficult to counter.
“I think once the maul is set up really well, it’s hard to stop,” Chapman said on Monday.
“Either defending it in the air or stopping it before it gets going is pretty crucial.
“They’ve got a technically good maul. Once they get set up we could be in a bit of trouble so we have to look at getting stuck in early on.”
The Waratahs also scored a try from a rolling maul against the Rebels last weekend, with their openside flanker Michael Hooper, dotting the ball down.
Chapman isn’t fussed the much-anticipated showdown between rival No.7s Hooper and Pocock is dominating the pre-match buildup as they battle for the Wallabies spot.
“It doesn’t irk me, I enjoy watching both the guys play,” Chapman said.
“That can take a bit of attention off the rest of the game, but as a team we’re not focusing on one guy.
“We’ll be focusing on the team across the board.”
On Friday, Chapman could come up against his good mate, former Brumbies and Reds teammate Stephen Moore, captain and hooker of the Canberra-based franchise.
“We still speak pretty regularly and obviously he’s a pretty key figure for them,” Chapman said of Moore.
“If we get the opportunity to have a bit of a go at each other, it’s always good fun.”
Chapman relished getting a rare startinfg role against the Rebels last weekend.
“It was pretty physical early on, a lot of set piece work, but I definitely enjoyed it.”
Rugby is Life
Guest
Great point. I have seen obstructions in open play being over harshly dealt with but organised obstruction.......
Rugby is Life
Guest
Brett you talk continually of interpretaion of Laws. There is nothing to interpret when you look at the man at the back of the maul with the ball. See my earlier post.
Rugby is Life
Guest
Mad Mick, I have been going on about this for ages. There was a roar article a few years ago. http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/05/29/inconsistency-of-the-law-relating-to-the-maul/ There is nothing to interpret. The players are clearly coming unbound and rebinding which is a penalty. Law 17.4 C "Players leaving or rejoining the maul. Players who leave a maul must immediately retire behind the offside line, otherwise, they are offside. If the player rejoins the maul in front of the hindmost team-mate in the maul, they are offside. The player may rejoin the maul alongside the hindmost team-mate. A maul is much harder to control if you stick with the laws and stay bound. " It happens in every game. The definition of bind requires, Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder. (From Rugby Laws Definition). Many players at the back hand on with one hand. They are not bound. Law 17.2 C (c) Placing a hand on another player in the maul does not constitute binding. If you ask me the best way to defend these rolling mauls is to tell the referee that you intend to attack any ball carrier who comes unbound or is not properly bound (which is most). The failure to police the maul laws drive me nuts every week. Englad were doing it in the 2003 World Cup!
Mike
Guest
Oh well then I am not that worried. Smart teams adjust to the refs interpretation.
piru
Guest
mauls are not boring - they are one of the best things about rugby. Where can you see anything even remotely similar?
soapit
Guest
no worries, always makes sense in your head before you try and write it down
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Mike There will be no need for adjustment. Mauls are refereed the same in northern hemisphere rugby.
Mike
Guest
No I agree Brett. But, is this a SANZAR interpretation, or an IRB interpretation? If our players get used to joining the maul by going past the ball carrier, and then they find at RWC that the refs aren't tolerating that at all, then it will not be easy for them to adjust in a very short space of time.
Chicas
Guest
What a load of nonsense. That may work with your mum and a few mates down the local, but seriously first coined in 2003. And Jesus was born in 1990.
Fin
Guest
Any hint of obstruction is renewed why should this be any different. If the Maul is interpreted as is was in the Brumbies match the other night then it will impossible to legally defend against. they need to do something.
Brett McKay
Expert
Careful what you wish for Rob, we've already seen the crackdown on scrumfeeds come and go within 12 months. I'm not saying it's right, for the record, I'm just saying if the teams are playing to what they've been told is will be allowed by interpretation, we can't exactly criticise them, can we..
Rob na Champassak
Roar Guru
Yes, alright, Brett, it may be legal, but it's still execrable. If refs are going to be so lenient on it, then why not have them start turning a blind eye to crooked lineouts or so on?
eagleJack
Roar Guru
Aaaah I'm with you, sorry guys.
RobC
Roar Guru
All three tries from the Tahs came from lineouts. All were excellent. That was against the Rebs. Brumbies will be different challenge. Likewise Big Willy likes to rip through the middle of attacking mauls. Worth a watch.
soapit
Guest
yep thats right rob, i was referring to the decision on what to do from the penalty that leads to the kick to touch that the attack then forms the maul from
Brett McKay
Expert
But Rob, if the teams are operating on advise of the current interpretations - see my post above - then aren't they legal within the eyes of the sole adjudicator of the Laws?
Brett McKay
Expert
Mick, the suggestion above is an insight into the refereeing interpretations, not just something the Brumbies have made up themselves. I'm of the belief that most mauls - from every team - contain some degree of illegality. I certainly don't believe this is isolated to the Brumbies alone..
Mad Mick
Guest
Brett I suggest that while you are looking at the legality of the Brumbies driving line-out maul that you have a look at the Waratahs first try last week. It would appear that Hooper deliberately disengages from the side of the maul and reattaches himself to the rear of the maul. According to the law he is supposed to stay bound. which he clearly did not do.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Rob this is hardly a new technique. It's been in the game for several years. Agree though that we need to crack down on it.
Markus
Guest
The dominant rolling maul that won the English the 2003 RWC was what coined the term 'truck and trailer' to define specific and deliberate maul obstruction. Nobody does a legal maul.