change to maul law

[Ian_Cook]

Why do we want the ball carrier to be allowed to go to the ground in a maul?

Further, why do we want to give an incentive for the ball carrier to go to ground?

[didds]

Is that really the alternative?!

welll,.. it seems a better aklternative ... but like I said i won;t argyue it strongly.

Persoanlly I don;t see an issue with ONE person dropping to ground and presntuing the ball at the base of the huddle of feet to be played away. I accept that if it means the entire thing collapsed then that is dangerous, but I would add like others that in rapidly approaching 40 years involvement in rugby I've never once seen that happen. That again aid though... it only takes one such occurrence of course, and one would be too many if it was catrastrophic.

However, in some ways its a matter of instants...

1)red runs into blue, red goes to ground and presents - we have no problem.
2)red runs into blue, second blue becomes involved, red goes to ground and presents - we have no problem.
3)red runs into blue, second red becomes involved, red goes to ground and presents - now there's a problem.

the time didderence betwen 1 and 3 might be fractions of a second...

didds

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I notice Ciaran, Donal and L'Irlandais are in favour of keeping the law as it is? I wonder why?

[L'irlandais]

I notice Ciaran, Donal and L'Irlandais are in favour of keeping the law as it is? I wonder why?

Donal1988 posted this short analysis on his blog, during the run up to the RWC.

The iRB issued this Law clarification 2 2011, following the Aussie defeat at the hands of the Irish during the RWC.

It is true that Les Kiss continues to coach this "wrap-up defence/choke tackle" tactic to the Irish squad.
~shrug~ works for me.

[Davet]

It always used to be the case that if a maul ended unsuccessfully the team going forward were awarded the put in.

they changed that around about 1992/3 or so to the current turnover. They changed the ruck law to match,then changed it back again.

From memory the origanl reason for the change was to discourage side from taking the ball into a maul and then when it got trapped they got the scrum, so it becae a win/win unless the opposition committed enough men to drive it the other way. The problem seemed to be too much static play.

Are they now lookig at going back to the old way...? What problem will that fix, and why will the original problem not simpy reappear?

[didds]

Are they now lookig at going back to the old way...? What problem will that fix, and why will the original problem not simpy reappear?

1) it was 20 years ago and the new law makers have forgotten
2) one theory about "going back" as it did mean (notwithstanding the connotations with negative play as fave pointed out) that sides will win the put in of they push better than the opponents. So maybe teams will put more forwards into mauls, thus freeing up space outside. Though to be honest a decent driving maul still does the same thing anyway.

didds

[Davet]

Didds - actually I agree, I didn't think anything was broken in the first place, and awarding it side gong forward did commit more plaers to the maul, and as you say free up space.

As I recall the reason they reverted with the Ruck was precisley for that reason, to get sides to commit forwards and ceate space out wide. sadly since ruck are now a pile of bodies o the floor that can't moved sides now commit as few as possible to the ruck and string tacklers across the park.

If we did our job and ensured players stay on their feet or get out of the way then we could have proper rucks, which are dynamic contests, and either get good quick ball which needs tacklers to commit and ths create the space, or suck forwards into a contest which again creates space. THEN we could have some fast action and flowing backline moves.

Or am I living in a nostalgic haze generated by gin?

[Robert Burns]

Have you ever thought that this is the only law in the game that actually rewards a team for killing their opponents ball, as opposed to all other laws that provide a contest for the ball to be kept alive?

[OB..]

Have you ever thought that this is the only law in the game that actually rewards a team for killing their opponents ball, as opposed to all other laws that provide a contest for the ball to be kept alive?

The ruck law enables you to win the ball from the opponents if you are moving forward before the ball becomes unplayable.

In what other phases of the game can you legally make the opponent's ball unplayable? Held up in goal, I suppose. Any others?

[Davet]

I just wonder if people think they are answering a quiz question on current Law rather than voting for or against a change in Law.