In the most spectacular moment of Saturday’s Super Rugby Pacific Final, Damian McKenzie sprinted in to take the ball on the full from a lineout, weaved at pace between two defenders and passed to his winger, who scored in the corner.
Following this scintillating play, at 25-15, and possibly 27-15, the Chiefs were almost certain to win the final.
But replays showed that McKenzie was only eight metres back from the lineout, instead of the required ten metres, when he began his run. The try was correctly ruled out and the Crusaders got a penalty on halfway.
They kicked to the corner and following some minutes of pressure, scored a decidedly unspectacular try from a maul which won them the game.
Damian McKenzie of the Chiefs charges forward during the dying stages of the Super Rugby Pacific Final. (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)
Once again, rugby shoots itself in the foot.
A spectacular way of scoring a try is shown to be almost impossible to achieve within the laws, while a tedious method of scoring which involves numerous players obstructing in front of the ball carrier is deemed to be so clearly within the laws that it is almost impossible to stop.
Contrary to what the commentators said at the time, McKenzie did not need to wait until the ball has crossed the 15 metre line before he started his run. He can move forward as soon as the ball is thrown. He then has to retire if it doesn’t travel 15 metres. But it is still difficult for players to make this play work under the laws.
The thrown ball moves at about 50 kilometres per hour and has to travel about 20 metres. The player therefore has to travel 10 metres at a speed of at least 25 kilometres per hour. These speeds and distances only just match. The timing has to be absolutely perfect for the player to reach the ball at the precise moment.
On Saturday, McKenzie caught the ball on his chest after sprinting eight metres. Had he travelled the two extra metres the ball may have fallen just outside his outstretched fingertips.
But having caught it, he is still just a ball runner who can be tackled and because of the speed with which this move takes place, he is potentially isolated and vulnerable to a breakdown turnover.
It is unfortunate that the precision, timing and vulnerability required to achieve this spectacular moment are totally absent from the way that the Crusaders then won the game.
The maul try requires cohesion and force projected in the right areas but it is completely against the ethos of the game in that the ball carrier is protected from the opposition tacklers by his teammates. Pushing against the maul is largely ineffective, as in order to stop it pivoting, the defenders have to spread themselves widely and therefore cannot mass their force against the attackers’ more direct shove.
Pulling the maul down is outlawed because of ridiculous notions about how dangerous this would be. Detaching and driving back into the maul is fraught with danger as you are then open to the referee’s interpretation of what is the front and what is the side, as Samisoni Taukei’aho found on Saturday night.
Even though he missed the main part of the maul entirely and drove on Brodie Retallick who was detached from the maul by his force, he was deemed to have entered from the side and penalised. This is symptomatic of the way that mauls are refereed. Once the maul has begun, the referee is effectively only refereeing the defending team. In no other phase of the game are the balance of the laws and the interpretation of them, so blatantly on the side of the attackers.
The notion that collapsing a maul is dangerous, has been completely discredited by the complete lack of serious injuries from maul collapses in the last ten years. It is beyond time that pulling down the maul was legalised. Blockers ahead of the ball carrier should not be protected and should be able to be pulled out of the way. If blocking in front of the ball carrier is legal then it should also be legal for those blockers to be tackled to the ground.
Until pulling down a maul is legalised, rugby will be hamstrung by its obsession with rewarding the staid and mundane over the creative and spectacular. The most creative, and arguably the best, team on Saturday night was denied the win due to the laws favouring the least inspiring way of scoring. This will continue to be the case until someone has the courage to say that the maul is against the spirit of the game and must be pulled down.
Ismack
Roar Rookie
I agree Tony, but sometime with them one off pick n goes you gotta wonder are all of tackles not head highs?
Francisco Roldan
Roar Rookie
Totally agree with you about the ´caterpillar´ issue...! That formation needs variations right now because it doesn't add enough unpredictability or surprises. Technically, it is a kick executed with the mark away, which would ensure a certain degree of precision and final effectiveness on the opponent. The kicking game metrics show that today we are far from that configuration.
Francisco Roldan
Roar Rookie
Interesting monitoring, Lindsay...! The rule indicates that the faster the game is, the greater the chances of generating penalties in contact both in attack and defense. Speed and imprecision are the great factors that conspire against discipline in contact. This without counting the human factor that the referee and his team contribute, and that could tip the game to its antipodes in minutes. From my reading, the Chiefs managed to run an average of 8 sucessfull rucks before being penalized versus 13 for the Crusaders. Eliminating the 'discipline' variable, Hamilton's men executed 19 rucks before losing 1, versus 22 for the Crusaders.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
How many breakdown penalties did the Cheifs have all season? You state they had hardly any, so I assume you have an idea? I know they lead the entire comp in cards, tied with the Blues, going into the final, and had the outright lead afterwards. So clearly they do have discipline issues. I assume you are excluding the calls that went in favour of the Chiefs when you reviewed all the bias calls?
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
yeah the biggest problem is that it’s very subjective where the side and front of the maul is. As the maul swings around, the side presumably becomes the front, but at what point does that occur? My interpretation of that is probably different to the refs therefore I get penalised for coming in the side, when a fraction of a second later and I’d have been deemed perfectly legal.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
yes there were mauls before these rules came in. THey could be collapsed but they were still used as laws allowed blockers in front of the ball carrier. As they became more common, there were very shrill calls, mainly in the northern hemisphere, about how deadly collapsing a maul would be. I remember reading an article by Stephen Jones about how he would pull his sons out of rugby and stop coaching his son's team because of the deadly danger he would be in if mauls were allowed to collapse. Since then it's been shown to be utter rubbish. There have been virtually no injuries from the thousands of mauls that have collapsed at every level. A slow moving pile of bodies does not create any great problems as it comes to ground. Allowing collapsing would not remove mauls it would just stop them going for long. Teams would be forced to use the ball off the back of the maul rather than constantly driving onwards in the maul.
jeznez
Roar Guru
I loved the old breakdown days where we could enter behind the ball. They were an absolute mess though. Was perfect for my game.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Defending sides and the Tahs, Ismack. If other teams got the same obstruction scrutiny the Tahs get from some refs then there’d be a lot less mail tries.
jeznez
Roar Guru
The collapsing rules came in due to neck safety didn’t they? We still had mauls before the law change came in.
AndyS
Roar Rookie
Although when they trialled it, legal sacking didn't kill off the maul, just changed its shape. Agree they should be more stringent with refereeing though, especially attacking players joining and ball carriers unbinding to move back rather than pass back.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
Yes I could live with that as long as one stoppage also meant use it.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
Indeed the breakdown penalties killed the Chiefs. But I'm a tad confused how a team which had barely been penalised at the breakdown all year suddenly became so completely undisciplined. I went back and looked at these penalties. The first was justified although Taukeiaho was pinned in the ruck, his position did enable Retallick to steal the ball. The second was not justified. Again Taukeiaho was pinned but this time he did not impede the ball coming out. If the ref had been better positioned he would have seen this and waved play on. a few minutes later the Chiefs appealed for a similar penalty and the ref said "no he's pinned there". This pattern continued throughout the game. Just before the missed forward pass, Will Jordan is tackled. Nankevill gets his hands on the ball and lifts it. Jordan on the ground grabs it again and places it back for the halfback. No penalty. In the final minute, almost the exact same scenario leads to a Crusaders penalty. I believe that Mr O'Keefe was determined not to be swayed into home team bias by the crowd and unfortunately he therefore swayed the other way. He was annoyed early by the Chiefs and therefore came down heavily on them. The classic example of this was when Scott Barrett took a Chiefs lineout by jumping directly in the Chiefs line. There could hardly be a clearer example of jumping across. No penalty. Retallick complained and is told "that's enough from you Brodie" and the Chiefs are given a formal warning for talking to the ref. I don't usually subscribe to the theories about refs influencing games but in this tight game he did have an undue impact, partly shown by the heavy penalty count against the Chiefs. It's interesting that Mr O'Keefe has come out and noted some of the things "he needs to work on".
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
I agree with that. The Chiefs played pretty poorly and made a lot of dumb mistakes. If the Chiefs were the best they would have won. They didn't because they made so many mistakes and lacked discipline at crucial times.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
Yes of course! They knew the Chiefs were going to do it because they'd never done it all year, therefore it was inevitable. Perhaps their coaching should have focused on stopping it rather than pointing it out to the refs? I nominate this comment for the "stupid comment of the week" award.
elysiusrugby
Roar Rookie
I don't think we should kill off the maul entirely (as legal sacking would) just referee it properly, with equal adjudication between defence and attack. Also calling "once" at the merest hint of stoppage of forward momentum
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
You haven’t addressed the point at all. Many many more mauls do not lead to tries than do. It’s difficult to get right
Francisco Roldan
Roar Rookie
I agree with the article, Lindsay. The maul is under analysis and I suppose that at the end of RWC2023 we will have news or modifications to the way of playing or defending it. Regarding the efforts of the Chiefs against the Crusaders, I think the key was the high indiscipline in the breakdown (9 penalties) which resulted in opportunities and points conceded. Another fact that speaks of the power of the Crusaders in the 'red zone' is that 57% of the visits to 22 M broked the end zone, between the 5 M line and the ingoal. Finally, I think that high performance rugby cannot be played with 14 men on the field. It is impossible to structure a team defensively and the Chiefs suffered from it.
Nambawan
Roar Rookie
More than enough one-out running in Rugby also! BTW can only concur that those rolling mauls are completely against the ethos and basis of rugby style football. It is an ugly blight on the code.
GusTee
Roar Pro
"The most creative, and arguably the best, team on Saturday night was denied the win due to the laws favouring the least inspiring way of scoring." Nah, but with respect, the Chiefs just didn't play well enough to win.
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
While I agree 100% with the no try after DMac’s off side play I am 100% in agreement with you on the maul. It is the only play in the game where the laws don’t allow for fair competition and I agree is a blight on the way rugby is played. That and the stupid caterpillar where apparently a ball with less than half of it being covered is still in a ruck. I personally think the law should change to the off side being where the ball is and so players can come in from the side to target the ball carrier, however the NH needed the maul to counter SH rucking and it is not going away any time soon.