As South Africa was on the Wallabies five-metre line for the second time on the weekend, the commentators said, “It’s almost impossible to stop a maul, legally.”
Since that possession ended with a South Africa try and a yellow card for Australia, they were right.
While the Aussies did end up winning the game, it doesn’t take away the fact that the maul has become an overpowered move.
For the past five years, teams have perfected the maul from the five-metre line (and even ten for some teams), especially South African team, who use it whenever they are in the attacking 22.
This even stretches down to their Super Rugby teams.
What makes the maul so difficult to defend is that the defence is already on the backfoot, the backline needs to make their tackles if they want to stop a try, yet getting any support from the forwards (especially the flankers in the backline) is not possible.
While the maul is skillful, the ultimate winner is who has more strength.
If the defence goes a second too early, there is going to be a penalty advantage.
The defence also can’t bring the maul down to the ground because that is also illegal, giving the offence another penalty advantage.
Finally, if a defender is in the wrong position, it’s another penalty advantage, often leading to either the team being able to try something creative, or just using that penalty to run another maul.
This cycle of penalties will lead to a yellow card for constant infringements, or a penalty try. But the only reason the defence constantly does this is because they otherwise run the risk of conceding a try.
But the real problem is the ‘use it’ system. The scrumhalf has three ‘use its’ to get rid of the ball from the maul, yet one only occurs when the maul is stagnant. This means that even after the maul has been stopped the forwards are given the opportunity to have another go at scoring.
On the second attempt they are often able to score since the defensive forwards aren’t able to regather themselves to stop a restructured maul.
At the past World Cup, 91 per cent of the time the offence won the lineout, meaning it is nearly impossible to defend.
(Photo by Getty Images)
The solution is changing the ‘use it’ rule from three to one. If the scrumhalf doesn’t pass the ball, it’s a scrum to the other team.
This encourages backline play and free-flowing rugby, rather than teams constantly having seven people in the lineouts, which will be more entertaining for the spectators and generate more interest in the sport.
It would even support teams that are able to set up a great maul. If a team is able to have a structured maul that doesn’t falter they will get all of the advantages, but teams that are sloppy will not be able to abuse the rules.
It encourages creative forward play, as teams try to find new ways to beat the system by using creative plays that we haven’t seen before.
The benefits for the defence are also clear: they only have to make one stand against the defence and can put a focus on the backline.
This change would clearly benefit the likes of the Wallabies, who let in two tries (one almost closing the game out) over the weekend, and it would hurt the Springboks, who over the past five year have made it a staple of their game. However, eventually teams will adapt and the mauls used would be better.
It would be one more step into position-less rugby, something we are eventually coming to, and therefore make the game more entertaining.
chucked
Guest
Agree PK, was a cynical S.A Ploy and it earned 3 not 2 penalties. ALL should have gone Aust way as the ball was in and S.A Player deliberately being held down.
LuckyPhil
Roar Rookie
The way the SB are playing, we will all have to choose an alternative sport. No sponsors are going to want to touch it. If you think the way they are playing is a good spectacle, then your are on your own. For a team like the SB to kick away possession when they are in the opposition 25 as the first resort is just bizarre. I certainly don't want to watch a game where one teams only game plan is to try and milk penalties and then have a whinge if it doesn't come off.
James D
Roar Rookie
To be honest i think the line out maul needs to be policed evenly. Referees are looking so closely for defensive penalties that offensive penalties seem to be ignored. Teams cannot even have an opportunity to sack when the entire maul is formed before the jumper hits the ground and the ball is handed whilst in the air to the rear of the maul. I remember the wallabies got penalised last year because the ball “has to be ripped” not handed off. The there is the issue of players slipping the bind and sliding back through the maul instead of passing the ball back. I don’t mind the idea that if it is stopped once then the team must use it, you only get one chance to promote the ball when tackled. Outside of that leave the rules as are and have the referee target attacking teams not just the defensive team.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
Maybe the amount of points you get for a try should be the same as the number on your back?
biltong
Guest
Have you ever considered an alternative sport? Its like saying you love tennis, but not Wimbledon because they serve and volley too much, and you prefer more baseline play. Rugby has a myriad of methods to score tries, now all of a sudden because there was a team that scored three maul tries it is a problem. Do you realise how rare it is where a team score three maul tries in a match?
Ken
Guest
Quite right. Forwards should be banned from scoring tries.
PeterK
Roar Guru
ok, IMO only rarely would the defending backs choose to run into the maul to help right away, it opens up for the backs straight away, so sure they stop the maul and give up other holes. IMO they would wait to see if their forwards hold the maul as they do now and only join as a last desperate measure.
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
Sorry PK. We seem to be at cross purposes. I’d love to see your proposal go forward. My point is that undercurrent Law the defending team needs to cover less than the 10m that the attacking backs would, even outside the 5m zone. Theoretically, the defending side would have the numbers to get the attacking side going backwards before their backs arrived. Of course, with fewer defenders in the line, the attacking team would/should release the ball hoping to score wide. As they say, swings and roundabouts.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Busted Fullback, you miss the point entirely. Currently in when the maul crosses the line of touch the players the lineout is over. The players who are 10 metres back can then join the maul. So mauls set up on the 5 (or close to it) metre line advance until they cross the line of touch , the backs charge into the maul and help drive it over. I am saying to change the law so any maul form from a lineout the players not in the lineout can never join the maul, not once the lineout ends , I mean ever. So the backs can never help drive the maul over which they can now when the lineout ends.
LuckyPhil
Roar Rookie
Just put forward an alternative to make the game a little bit more exciting, as tries from mauls like the Springboks (or Brumbies for that matter) are bloody boring. As a long suffering rugby tragic, it is a shame the Springboks are happy to bore the opposition to death. If all teams followed their lead it will be the death of rugby.
biltong
Guest
So lets discredit tries where no pass was made. remove tries that come from mauls, grubber or kick pass or box kicks from a ruck or scrum. Also remove tries where the eigthman breaks from behind the scrum. Remove tries scored from a charge down. Remove tries scored from a quick tap kick. No more pick and go tries. See where I am going with this?
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
Sorry PK, my internet went down, have just gotten back. Please note 37b https://live.laws.api.worldrugby.org/document/World_Rugby_Laws_2021_EN ENDING A LINEOUT 37. The lineout ends when: a. The ball or a player in possession of the ball: i. leaves the lineout; or ii. enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or iii. goes beyond the 15-metre line. b. A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the mark of touch. c. The ball becomes unplayable. 38. Other than by moving to the receiver position if that position is empty, no lineout player may leave the lineout until it has ended. Sanction: Penalty.
Andrew Coorey
Guest
A one stoppage rule makes a lot of sense. How about not letting lineout jumpers tape handles all over their legs to take the lineout back to a bit more of a contest. Jumpers are lifted to to the skies with taped humps around their thighs. If you are likely to win say 65 instead of 85% of your own lineouts you might make the default kick to the corner option less attractive.
LuckyPhil
Roar Rookie
I agree with many of the comments here that mauls are too one-sided and detract from what rugby is all about. I have seen comments from SA supporters saying it was 3 tries to 1, but the fact is not one pass was made to score any of their tries. Many of the suggestions on this thread would have an impact, but I reckon we need to have less rules for the refs to get wrong than more. That is why my suggestion is to make any try that came about as a result of a maul directly from a lineout only worth 3 points. This way there is more of an incentive than just taking a penalty, but more incentive to run and pass and entertain.
Johnb
Guest
I actually agree with you regarding bringing down the maul but any law change that is seen as creating a risk to safety isn't going to happen, which is fair enough (even if some would argue that allowing and indeed encouraging rolling mauls is what creates the risk in the first place). Therefore, if you take the view (and I can only agree there too) that repeated lineout mauls are an ugly part of the game which should not be encouraged, you have to look for a solution elsewhere. I like the author's idea of reducing the number of stops and re-starts allowed. I would either additionally or alternatively take the approach of insisting on strict compliance with the laws by the team seeking to take advantage of the benefits given by the defenders not being able to collapse the maul - for example, all players must enter the maul legally; the lineout jumper must be brought back to ground properly; anyone ahead of the ball must be properly bound in etc etc. If you can then score, fair enough.
piru
Roar Rookie
How can you not?
Harry Jones
Expert
I don’t know where to start.
fiwiboy7042
Roar Rookie
that's too much effort. Not worth it. I've seen the defending lock caught in the middle of the rolling maul reach out and grab hold of the ball carrier. That's all that was needed.
Peter Connolly
Guest
Positionless rugby .... why we don't just give in and adopt league rules then?
Totara
Roar Rookie
How can you seriously "love a well structured and executed maul"? A maul is legalised obstruction purely and simply, and is one of the reasons rugby has become so unwatchable.