What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

This is all about "interpretation" of the laws ignoring what is actually printed in the IRB lawbook. As you correctly mention, the bias is ridiculously in favour of the attacking team making it near-impossible to defend a driving maul legally.

You don't contest a line out close to the try line because if you don't win turn-over ball you are at a disadvantage and the attacking team will be able to get into a driving formation quicker than you making it even more difficult to defend. If you stay on the ground you can drive the moment the catcher is on the ground. If you drive with enough ferocity you can force the attacking team backward, hopefully driving them off their feet and if the referee is good enough to recognise that your actions were positive, you will win a turnover. Problem is, 9 times out of 10, the bias to the attacking side will mean that if a maul collapses the defending team will be (incorrectly) penalised.

Even if you can't drive a team off their feet, you will usually see the attacking team driven back as much as 10 meters, by definition this is an unsuccessful maul, the Laws clearly state that a maul must be moving towards the opposition dead-ball line. Under the present interpretation the call should therefore be "That's once" meaning the next time the maul stops moving forward they must "Use it or lose it" Generally the attacking team is allowed to get settled, get their maul formation sorted, all while moving back or stationary, and then finally start to move forward. All waved on by the referee. Personally I would like to see a backward moving maul deemed the "that's once" and if it then becomes stationary while they try to get their formation sorted "Use it now!". If they don't it is a turn-over, scrum to the opposition. An attacking team should not get a third attempt to drive forward.

The "coming in at the side" law is also a lottery. The laws clearly state that if you ender the maul behind or alongside the hind-most player and bind you CANNOT be off-side as long as you remain bound. If the attacking team wheel the maul and you end up on their side YOU ARE NOT OFFSIDE, but how often do we see this penalised? Hughes was even yellow carded for this in the Amlin QF against Glous at AP.

The whole premise of the sport is a fair contest for the ball, that was behind the scrum engage changes last season so it was no longer who can slam into the opposition the hardest. The maul interpretation desperately needs to be similarly reviewed so that there is a fighting chance of defending a maul legally. At the moment it is near-impossible and can only successfully be defended with a lot of luck on top of strength and technique.

The other option is not to join the maul. Other sides have done this to us often (aren't Saracens fond of this?) and again, as long as the Ref knows the Law, the other side are obstructing and offside, so you should get a penalty.

KevinTheB

www.justgiving.com/kevinbroadbent

Not joining the maul is a good option I think, but you need to make sure your biggest two guys are next to the lineout catcher, since if he holds onto the ball there's no issue with them rumbling forwards.

I think the trick can work the first time you do it, but a smart team will then counter that. So probably best thing is to save the non-engagement till a 5-10m maul, and compete in the rest.

It can be very tough to stop a maul, but the best efforts I've seen have involved the defending team not trying to outmuscle in an overblown scrum, but for members to hurl themselves at the front of the maul in an attempt to continuously splinter it apart. It needs to be done before fully set, but seems far more effective than just engaging in a pushing contest.

I don't know if competing in the lineout is the right option unless you've got a very good lineout competitor in your arsenal, since if you fail to disrupt it'll be very costly.

Nigel the problem with your second paragraph is that we HAVE tried getting into the proper position to defend quickly and it doesn't work. If they are allowed to secure clean ball we cannot seem to stop them whatever we do - so, I say don't allow them to get clean ball at all.

The problem with not joining the maul is that it only takes one of our guys to get held in or tangled up and that constitutes a maul and they will have a clear walk in from 5 metres as all your other defenders will have backed off.

I think that the non-engage will become ineffective next season unless used as a shock tactic like the front of the lineout throw. The issue is that it is perfectly legal to be bound and trundling forwards as long as the lead player has possession.

Practising quick calls from the hooker once he recognises non engagement will nulify the tactic - indeed it would be suicidal not to engage from 5m and allow the attacker to make ground.

Much of what Nigel says is spot on - I would just ask the refs to be diligent about ensuring that the ball is not transferred until the catcher is on the ground (as per Saints at home 2 seasons ago) - that allows the immediate sack - the best way to frustrate the tactic. The referees rightly focussed on the lifters obstructing but we now need to focus on the catcher as well.

How do you stop it once it is started - only 2 ways - the octopus and the tortoise. Octopus is the Shawsie method - get your arms all over it asap - the tortoise after the Roman formation - lots of bodies low and driving.