- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The Wallabies’ Pool A clash against Fiji early on Wednesday morning was a promising display, with Michael Cheika’s men looking clinical, aggressive and super-fit.
It seems as though the tough pre-tournament training sessions have honed the Wallabies’ ability to play fast, accurate rugby for 60 to 70 minutes. The substitutions caused a little bit of disarray but it was still a convincing 28-13 win.
Unfortunately Fiji never really looked competitive despite an all-around better performance compared with their opening match against England. What that says about the Wallabies’ chances against the English is pure speculation.
The only blight on the Wallabies’ performance is something of a pedantic point.
The boys in green and gold were always going to come away with the win and they played some attractive running rugby. Sekope Kepu’s try in the second half was a classy combination of a dummy, fend and raw power, it was great to see the big man get over.
David Pocock, who was man of the match, scored a brace but both tries were off the back of rolling mauls. Apart from a scrum that collapses and has to be reset three times, there is probably nothing as dull in the modern game as a rolling maul.
Here are five reasons why the rolling maul should be banned.
1. Safety
Mauls are dangerous. Starting from the player who catches the ball at the lineout (the usual source of the rolling maul), the catcher immediately turns his back on the opposition and presents the ball to his teammates. This exposes the catcher’s entire back to the opposition, who, when making a fair tackle around the midriff, unavoidably connect with spinal cord and land an uncomfortable kidney shot.
Once the maul is formed the defensive team have two choices: one of which is the sack and the other is the ‘disorganised-lemmings-push’, from here known as the DLP. Sacking is dangerous as often the maul moves forward and tramples the defensive player lying on the ground.
Also, the defensive player may employ a judo-style flip to drag the stationary catcher to the ground. The latter, admittedly, is merely a dangerous tackle but one that is nonetheless encouraged by the static nature of the catcher and their exposed back.
Further, and probably most dangerously, once the maul of approximately 800 kilograms gets moving, the DLP becomes the defensive tactic of choice, often with little success. The defensive players end up lining up and taking turns one at a time to fling themselves at the opposition maul and are usually tramped in the process.
Often insult is added to injury with a penalty given to the attacking team on account of the defensive team ‘collapsing the maul’. There is also further danger to the attacking players when the maul is collapsed.
All-in-all the maul is arguably one of the most dangerous areas of the modern game.
2. They are boring
Rugby, ultimately, is a form of entertainment. Possibly the world’s greatest, but that is a digression. The rolling maul is boring, with casual observers often inquiring ‘Huh, what are they doing? Who has the ball? How are they allowed to do that?’, to which many a diehard fan replies ‘Maul. Dunno. Legal’.
Pocock’s two tries were each worth five points, just like Kepu’s, but Wallabies’ third try was just that much more memorable. The skill and panache displayed by a big prop to beat several defenders to score is always worthy of the highlight reel. The rolling maul is not.
Often, the ball cannot be seen, only chaos. There is very rarely fluidity as the maul splutters and stops and starts. Sometimes only at the last moment is the ball-carrier, usually a hooker or flanker, visible as they plop down over the try line. Any part of the game that allows a player to score by simply falling-down is never going to be interesting. The pick and drive and ruck contest is far more entertaining, tense and competitive.
3. They are difficult to officiate
Spare a thought for the poor referees who are trying to differentiate between a ‘truck and trailer’ and the defensive players merely failing and regrouping for another series of DLP.
In any other part of the game where an attacking player is in front of the ball-carrier, and impedes a defender, they are offside. For some strange reason the maul has been allowed to remain in rugby despite this incongruity.
There is always a break in the maul, always a point in time where the attacking players are bound and the ball carrier is protected but there are not actually any defensive players bound. This should be called an offside but often it’s not, there are simply too many limbs and too much pandemonium for the referees to be able to tell.
The ‘use-it’ laws have helped to speed up the game but essentially are designed to remove the ball from the maul. Mauls are also tricky to officiate because it is not always clear if the entire maul has been stopped or only part of it.
The referees must hate mauls.
4. The backs do nothing
Rugby is a team game and thus teamwork should be celebrated. The scrum and lineout already exist as specialised areas of competition for the forwards, but the maul is an unnecessary extra contest. The backs must be getting really cold standing around watching the kick-for-the-corner, lineout, rolling maul, try, kick at goal, restart, first ruck and then tackle.
In theory there could be a period of 10 minutes where the backline is not really required to do anything. This begins to border on the insanity of a scrum with three or four resets, which leaves people asking ‘What’s the point?’.
The players want to run with the ball in-hand and the fans want to see them run. Lose the rolling maul and teams will have to run the ball more, or at least resort to the pick and drive and general ruck-play, which the backs can and often need to be involved with.
Israel Folau got his first turnover at Test level against Fiji and it was a good one. It is not a question of the ability of the backs to play like forwards and more a question of opportunity.
5. They are not competitive
An American friend once asked what the main differences between gridiron and rugby were. The following three were provided: there is less padding, the ball must be passed backwards and blocking is not allowed. Essentially rugby is a series of contests, from the aerial battle at the kick-off to each tackle to the scrum.
Each of these contests is designed to be as competitive as possible. In the air both players may play at the ball but not the man. In the ruck the first defensive player there may use his hands to pilfer but once the ruck is formed the contest changes. At scrum time it is eight against eight, all packed down identically and theoretically the ball is fed into the middle of the scrum. At the lineout the ball must be thrown in straight and both teams can jump.
The rolling maul is not a direct contest. Unlike every other facet of the game the ball is nowhere near the collision. It is usually tucked safely at the back under the bulging bicep of the player who will eventually flop over the line to score.
Without this contest aspect the maul has no majesty. It is like a block in gridiron; effective, but not impressive. The player who scores the gridiron touchdown with a stiff-arm, shimmy and juke (fend, step and dummy in rugby terms) is a rarity, whereas in rugby, they are legend. Mauls do not make legends.
Once mauls are banned from the game they won’t really be missed. They are something of a quaint rarity these days anyway. The ruck is becoming less of a puzzling mess and more of a ferocious contest – just ask Michael Hooper and Pocock after their stellar displays at ruck time against the fierce Fijians.
Here’s to more running rugby, here’s to banning the maul.
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.