Hansen hits out at 'boring' lineout drives

No I don't think its a coincidence at all, it was pointed out to Hansen, as it was the only obvious blip on an otherwise pretty good performance by the ABs - he commented on it, and to be honest I'm not surprised he said it at all. I think your choice of the word 'relative' was good, because the ABs don't have a history of weakness in this area, certainly no more than any other team, and I'm sure they will work on it. It was more the last part of your comment that I was focussed on. You are attributing words and opinions to Hansen that aren't accurate, but rather betrays your own bias when it comes to this particular team. And here you'll have to admit, you do have some form.

You have to admit, though, Coconut that it's a bit of a coincidence. I don't see how the rolling maul is more 'boring' than kicking high balls to chase, yet I don't hear Hansen say a word about this. It's difficult to get away from the conclusion that the reason is because the ABs aren't very good at the former and so it doesn't form a part of their strategy, hence it's 'boring' and should be stopped; but are very good at the latter and use it effectively, so it's perfectly legitimate and 'proper' rugby.

could be Mike. Whilst he's working on that, he might as ask to remove the scrum. Which technically is even 'more boring'. What is most disgraceful about his statement in my view are: - statement regarding 'collapse policy' is as reaction to conceding 14 points to rolling mauls - the fact he is in the law review team (or whatever its called) for World Rugby. It means he has direct influence and conflict of interest. - his statement is not only biased. It is also wrong If he's talking about NZ, then hes made a plain old mistake. No one's perfect. But when youre part of rule making, you cannot make these statements, especially after a match like that.

Coconut, halfway down the article, 8th paragraph

“There’s never been anyone injured in a collapsed maul yet and there’s thousands of them every week get penalised, so make that legal and it becomes a half-pie, a fair contest.”

Hansen needs to stop whinging about the rules and do his job. The game plan around defending lineout drives is lacking.

Absolutely. I simply can't fathom why the All Blacks didn't attack the ball in the air to disrupt the setup. There is the argument that it leaves you exposed, i don't agree as attacking teams always set up before they move forward with the maul, giving ample time for defenders to get in position. The only reason you wouldn't jump is if you were going to attack the jumper as soon as he hits the ground with force. The All Blacks were so poor that they did neither. They didn't jump, nor did they drive aggressively through the jumper, they simply folded into the maul and failed to have any impact. It was very very poor technique, i don't know if that's a coaching or captaincy issue or simply a lack of effort from the entire pack, but it was a glaring lack of something and it will be punished if they don't sharpen up.

No problems, but about as neat an example of argument from fallacy as one could hope for... ;)

I think you need to take his comments in the proper context they were given Birdy, rather than use it as an opportunity to tell us all yet again what we already know you think of the ABs.

RobC, can you show me where Hansen says 'mauls do not cause injuries' ... I think we've moved quite far from what he was saying in this interview... but if what you say is true regarding the dangers of this part of the game, then logic would dictate not allowing rolling mauls at all would be a far more effective way of controlling injuries caused from collapsing them, since they would not be allowed in the game. As you know, players still collapse mauls even though they risk getting a penalty - happens almost every game.

Por old BUBBA HANSEN just because the all blacks have the worst maul in the TOP 6 means he has to cry about it cos he knows it will be their undoing RWC 2015..

Of course 'Hansen hits out at boring lineout drives'. It's an area of relative All Black weakness and, therefore, is by definition not 'proper' rugby.

Major difference... In the scrum, the ball is on the ground and played with the feet.

Lack of aimless kicking? Ruan Pienaar kicked away all of the meagre possession the Boks got in the second half. One time we won a lineout, mauled forward for about 25m, got the ball back to Pienaar, and he kicked an up and under straight to Folau and there went the Wallabies on attack again. Drives me around the bend. So anyway... Maybe the Wallabies didn't kick aimlessly, but the Boks did ibn the second half. As if they thought that any more attacking would be too risky, and better to defend. Pathetic.

Rob, your first sentence: I think that's his point.

I'm with Hansen on this. Even as a bok supporter. Maul is legalised obstruction. Rules need to be consistent if we are to have any chance of simplifying them and reducing the impact of referee interpretation. Obstruction is obstruction. It's ridiculous to allow it "sometimes".

This will be my last post on this Andy, as I want to avoid repeating myself. - Shag and Spiro says mauls do not cause injuries. The study clearly says otherwise - The study clearly mentions that injuries come from both collapsed scrums and non collapsed scrums. Mauls are no different - Scrum collapses are penalised. So are mauls

Regarding the scrums, I would imagine they don't mention it because no-one is discussing that. The study doesn't recommend anything, it merely noted that the finding on mauls may have a bearing on discussions that are already ongoing. Were the IRB (as it was at the time) talking about scrum collapses too, then they probably would have also mentioned that. On the whole I thought their conclusions were pretty clearly stated though, and would suggest that a peer reviewed study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine probably says exactly what it means to say. What it says is that collapsing a maul certainly causes injuries. Not collapsing the maul also causes injuries. The relevant finding, and I suspect what Spiro and Hansen actually meant, was that collapsing was no more likely to cause injury than the alternative. If that is a separate argument, then the argument is one clutching at semantics - did you seriously think they were arguing that players would be made immune from injury if only they collapsed the maul? Apparently it has no bearing on the injury rate, which I think would certainly justify questions as to whether the law is unnecessarily complicated and favouring the attacking side. The question of catastrophic events is valid though, as they are probably what people are really thinking of when they discuss 'injuries'. I'm not surprised are excluded from that study, not least because they would be so rare that any occurrence within the study would probably not be statistically significant within such a relatively limited sample size. That would require a much bigger study, such as http://irbplayerwelfare.com/pdfs/CI_Risk_Assessment_EN.pdf. It's a pretty dry old read but found that, even when combined with rucks, mauls are no more likely (and probably less) to result in catastrophic injury than any other phase of play. The section on perception of risk is interesting too.

Andy, I've read the study in detail couple months ago. My original point is this: maul collapses causes injuries. This is contrary to claims made by Hansen here and Spiro back in May. Because 57% of maul injuries are from collapses. The quote you pointed out is a separate argument. Do collapsed mauls lead to more injuries than non collapsed mauls: - I thought their conclusion was not well expressed, and somewhat misleading - you'll notice they also, in the detail, they mention the same thing about scrums: there is no indication that scrum collapses lead to more injuries than non collapses. - yet they dont allude that scrums collapse should not be penalised, as they have re maul collapses Finally they also note catastrophic injuries from scrums and mauls are not in scope.

I don't think he said it because the Argies scored 2 tries through mauls. I think he is just voicing what most people think. Tries from mauls are boring.

Scrum is set piece. Maul is not. All players must hold their their bind until ball is cleared from the scrum. Not so with mauls. Scrum is reset if it goes beyond the 90 degree angle. Not so with mauls. No one actually handles the ball until the ball is at the back of the scrum whereas in the maul the attacking team get the ball to the back by handling it. They are two very different components of the game and as such, require a different approach from ref and technique from the players. I'm a fullback as well so their are probably many more subtle and obvious differences that I haven't captured.