There exists a cadre of fans, coaches, commentators, and even administrators who complain and campaign that the maul should be driven out of rugby.
Today, I have my own counter complaint.
Also, I would like start my own campaign. I would like for these people to stop whinging, and embrace rugby holistically and properly. The maul belongs to rugby, just as much as the breakdown, scrums, running, the tackle, and the garryowen.
Recently, I thoroughly enjoyed a game at Suncorp Stadium. In fact I enjoyed two consecutive weeks where Queensland handily defeated both eastern seaboard rivals. The latest victim were the unconvincing Brumbies, whose undefeated run was smashed, just as their maul was smashed by the Reds’ pack.
They were so unconvincing that they were not able to deliver a single maul try. Until last week, any pundit could bank five points the moment the Capitalists set up a five-metre lineout. So what happened?
It’s simple. The Reds stopped the Brumbies’ maul. They prepared for it. They delivered it. Not just once or twice. It was every time. Some of the teams have not done it, because they have not prepared for it.
(Photo by Albert Perez/Getty Images)
The first argument against the maul is that it is unstoppable and ruins the concept of rugby as a game of contest.
Opponents to the maul argue that a half-decent team could easily score maul tries from a five-metre lineout. The Reds match last week put paid to this argument.
What refractory fans and commentators should instead complain about is their team’s coaches’ inability to prepare their team to properly defend mauls. This video captures the South African spirit. They do not complain about mauls being unstoppable. They merely stop them.
The second argument is that maul is a form of shepherding. The concept of shepherding is relevant to the mode of open play or run and tackle. A key objective of open play is to either break the line, or beat defenders. Players who deliberately block the defenders’ right to undertake their job is an offence.
Shepherding is not relevant to mauls. The objective of the maul is similar to scrums. Except mauls come with more variety, skill and intrigue. It is a form of organised intimidation, power, guile, and strength. Mauls requires the collective strength and competency of the forwards – more than any other aspect of rugby.
It would be mad to rob rugby of the maul. In fact the maul should be employed more regularly, especially those initiated from open play.
(Photo by Joe Allison/Getty Images)
Like the scrum, mauls are a pushing contest with the pill used as an instrument to control the momentum of the contest. Unlike scrums, defending players are allowed to work through the maul and grab the ball from within the grasp of the attacking maul members. This is yet another form of the contest in rugby.
Some may argue that the pill should not be allowed to held at the back of the maul, at is for scrums, because scrums are a set piece while mauls are not. However, it does not matter whether mauls are a set piece or not.
Mauls offer an alternative mode of contest between two teams for dominance, position, and momentum. If you held the ball the front of the mall, then you turn the maul from a game of dominance into a ball-grabbing farce. Even Israel Folau might agree to this.
Mauls are a game on their own. Those who cannot defend against them should get their act together.
The fans and commentators who cannot appreciate it, I sincerely hope they look at the whole game of rugby and embrace it like a warm hug, or a rolling maul.
In last week’s Reds versus Brumbies match, the crowd of a mere 14,000 erupted like 50,000 every time Queensland stopped the maul. It is about time that every one else should appreciate it.
But if most of these complainants are current or former backs, they will never get it. I guess I cannot win them all!
RobC
Roar Guru
https://www.theroar.com.au/2023/02/16/legalised-obstruction-thorn-defends-rugbys-uniqueness-after-world-cup-winning-coach-turns-maul-rat/
Mark
Guest
When the Hookers are the leading try scorers in the comp then you know somethings wrong The maul as currently defined is legal obstruction with very little chance to legally defend It all comes back to the stupid ruling that you have to come from directly behind If this was changed back to come from onside we would fix both the ruck and maul The maul is more boring than a scrum
AndyS
Guest
My opinion going into those trials was largely against allowing collapsing, but was completely changed by the end. I was sorry when that particular trial fell by the wayside, as I thought it showed real promise.
Monorchid
Roar Rookie
RobC, I've never understood this relatively recent criticism of the maul. All right, I never played in the tight 5. I was a terrible open side breakaway. But I always appreciated the subtleties of a well driven sustained maul and its tactics more as a spectator than a player. And defending against a maul is a skill on its own. The maul is possibly also a hangover from the origins of the game at the Rugby school if you delve into the history where it was like a moving scrum. It's part of the tradition of the game. And it doesn't detract from it. Now lineouts are another issue.
Gman
Roar Rookie
If people don't like the maul go and watch League. Commentators should know better, you have a job because of the way Rugby is played.
Check-side for the boundary
Roar Rookie
an 2 days ago I'm not saying for rolling maul or against rolling maul, but I think that Spiro Zavos, if he were still writing, would remind us all of Rugby’s roots ... of the beginnings and the "Eton wall game" ....
RobC
Roar Guru
Ditto!
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
Yes. A penalty.
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
As AndyS says, if he became unbound, it wasn't good play. The situation is similar to the famous comment in the Six Nations England vs Italy: "I'm the referee. It's not my job to tell you the Laws of Rugby". You must maintain your bind under all circumstances. Which means, you must be prepared for all circumstances.
Crusher_13
Roar Rookie
You are completely correct. But it’s also not that simple. If it was a professional player would never make a mistake. I’m happy for maul infringements to be penalised. They should be. But I don’t want to see teams hoping for a penalty by disengaging or doing something that goes against the spirit of the game, like when a player pulls away from a ruck so the opposition player goes off their feet.
Poco Loco
Roar Rookie
DOC. I agree. I would like to see a free kick for scrum infringements unless there is dangerous play. If the ball is playable, the ref makes them use it and play on. The scrum was originally a method for one team to have an advantage by put in after a knock on to get possion. Not a weapon for penalties. When a line out throw is not in straight, the opposing side should only be allowed a throw in and no scrum option. All this would reduce the number of scrums and resets. A collapse scrum close to the try line that stops a pushover try should still be awarded a penekty try. Cheers.
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
To tell you the truth, I can’t remember the detail. At the moment, if ONE player can tackle the jumper in a line out immediately he touches the ground, nobody else from his team involved, then that is a tackle and not collapsing a maul. Takes timing, skill and a little bravery with up to 8 opponents landing on top of you. These days it’s best to keep the maul up and the ball in/unplayable so that you get the feed in the scrum. Hope I could help.
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
I know how you feel. Sometimes I get so excited I’ll leave something out because my fingers on the keyboard are nowhere near as fast as my mind. That just shows how slow my fingers are! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
RobC
Roar Guru
thanks piru. thats interesting
piru
Roar Rookie
Nothing dynamic or entertaining about mauls? Maybe halfbacks aren't the best place to get an opinion on this?
piru
Roar Rookie
I'm pretty sure the ELVs allowed deliberate collapsing of mauls, I never saw an injury from it
piru
Roar Rookie
Why should it be allowed, in a maul where deliberate obstruction or shepherding of the ball carrier in other aspects of the game is not permitted? The same reason it's allowed in rucks and scrums, because they're rucks, mauls and scrums, not general play.
RobC
Roar Guru
Perfect. Thanks PeterK
RobC
Roar Guru
Thank you sir! That is a Tragic. Yet, perhaps not really a true one, perhaps
RobC
Roar Guru
Yes. He needs to join my campaign