Brumbies coach Stephen Larkham has called on Super Rugby officials to again review its rules around rolling mauls after “further inconsistencies” in their first pre-season trial.
The ACT outfit were told last month referees would clamp down on the way the ball was moved through the maul this year and were advised to change the way they set up their go-to move – which yielded 10 tries last season.
But, according to Larkham, confusion remains.
The Brumbies were awarded the opening try in Saturday’s 21-17 loss to the Waratahs at Wagga Wagga in southern NSW off the back of a rolling maul via Josh Mann-Rea.
But they were penalised for another rolling maul in the second half, which the coach felt was the exact same set-up as the first.
“(It) was thought to be illegal and was called by the touch judge,” he said.
“It’s made it really difficult for the referees now.
“They’ve got to review it.
“I think they’ll review that decision and they’ll give us some feedback there and we can modify as needed.”
With less than three weeks to go before the new season gets under way, Larkham said clubs needed to get some clarity.
“It’s about going back to the referees, making sure they’re happy with what we’re doing and then we’ll find a middle ground somewhere,” he said.
Despite Saturday’s result, Larkham was pleased with his side’s overall performance in a “high-spirited” and entertaining match.
He said a couple of players put their hands up for selection ahead of next week’s second and final trial against the Queensland Reds at Ballymore.
“They’ve staked their claim to get an opportunity next week and into the season,” added Larkham.
“And that’s what we’re looking for – guys who haven’t had an opportunity at this level to put their hand up and see whether they were good enough.”
They will join returning Wallabies Stephen Moore, David Pocock, Scott Fardy, Christian Lealiifano and Scott Sio who were all rested this weekend.
PeterK
Roar Guru
on that reasoning pushover tries 5 metres out from scrums should not be allowed either. So scrums outside the 22 are allowed but not within the 22. The point is a maul can be defended as a scrum can be.
Clelo
Guest
I too find the rolling maul within the 5 metre zone from a lineout particularly unentertaining but that in itself maybe holds the answer. Rugby could keep the rolling maul because that is an integral part of the game but place a zone limitation on it's use. For example anywhere within the 22 mewtre area you can't use a rolling maul from set play which is the key. There is nothing to stop using the maul as a result of 2nd phase play but to set up on the 5 metre line and have Poey go over inflates his stats to dishonest levels and he is good enough without that.
PeterK
Roar Guru
CUW - it is a VERY logical argument unlike yours. You need to learn some critical reading skills as well. I never stated the backs were not good. I mentioned the words stronger in the forwards and weaker in the backs, these are comparative terms not absolute. So to make it easier for you So the COMPARISON is to the other team. One set of forwards will be deemed better and one set of backs does not mean the weaker set are not good. So if in comparison your strength lies in the forwards why not use forward tactics to score tries.
jcr
Guest
Joining behind the ball?
CUW
Guest
a good but not very logical arguement Peter. assuming ur point is an answer to Die hard (and assuming Die Hard is referring to super rugger) , the super teams are chosen from a plethora of feeding clubs . so if a team has good forwards and rubbish backs then it is a problem of selection, whihc shud be rectified in the boardroom and not on the park by playing strategy. if u have the chance to get good players under a contract, why would u end up with good and bad? that would happen in case of a school or a local club, where u have no options. i'm not saying every team shud be a galacticos like toulon, but surely there is enuf talent to gt ateam with good forwards and backs?
PeterK
Roar Guru
so if 1 team is stronger in the forwards re scrums and mauls but weaker in the backs they have to play open rugby?
PeterK
Roar Guru
The issue is the attacking team is not reffed to abide by the laws, that is the issue, not the maul itself. Make every try scored subject to review AND apply the laws correctly e.g. staying bound, joining in front of the ball and so on, is the solution.
Die hard
Roar Rookie
If it were only occasional perhaps I would view the subject differently. But when any penalty from the ten yard line is pumped into the corner for a maul I despair. Such is how the Brumbies play and I find it tough going. Bring back the open field.
PeterK
Roar Guru
do not agree, the maul is a pillar of rugby and nothing wrong with using it from the lineout. I find mauls from the lineout entertaining and exciting
Die hard
Roar Rookie
Why do they persist with it might be the better question. To kick to the corner to manipulate a score through wrestling and grunt as a method is neither entertaining nor exciting and quite unimaginative. So much for aussie running rugby. Hardly developing much here. Just doing what they can to get by. The sooner the maul from lineout is removed the better the game will be. World rugby is moving in this direction. Maybe the Brumbies should also and gain reward from developing other methods to score.
pete and paul
Roar Rookie
IF they take away the 'rolling maul' all NH sides would be stuffed scoring any tries...