passtheball says...

@ 2eyed - the major problem is that the ball carrier is hidden behind a wall (obstruction for me) and that wall can only be brought down immediately and then the attacking maul can do whatever it wants. Mark Lawrence is one of the few refs that looks at both sides for offenses - usually its just easy points ( try or penalty) for any team with an average maul organisation.

Cant agree that a rolling maul going the full length of the field is a joy to behold - hardly an equal contest like a scrum or lineout. Rugby was supposed to be about running with the ball, beating or confronting the tackler, not slipping it up the jumper or hiding it behind other team members. If it continues defenders need the ability to drop the front guys just like at a ruck.

Posted 06:35 28th May 2012

2EyedKiwi says...

Guys - can't agree. The rolling maul has always been within the rules, and the only reason we've not seen it in Super Rugby for so long is purely based on teams decisions to play expansive rugby.

Personally, I like the rolling maul as its a true test of tough defensive character, as shown by the Chiefs who countered well. As long as the ref is vigilant (as Lawrence was for truck and trailer), then bring it on! I remember as a kid wathing the ABs maul almost the length of the field with Zinzan holding it in the back. Bloody awesome combatitive tough play.

In fact, since then, the rules have changed so the maul can be dropped, so any well coached team should be able to counter.

Just my 2 cents...

Posted 08:47 27th May 2012

jonesy2 says...

passtheball-- completely agree, that human centipede thing that the bulls do should be counted as the ball being played as soon as one of the forwards plays the ball back with his foot.

Posted 17:03 26th May 2012