Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
50:22 and more to be globally trialled by WR
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dullonien" data-source="post: 1092033" data-attributes="member: 13739"><p>Legally collapsing mauls was trialled a number of years ago. It had the complete opposite outcome to what some here think it would. By not being able to draw defenders into a maul/risk of a maul, defenses just spread as one player waa sent in to take the legs away. It all resulted in more defenders in the line and less space to attack, and generally the trial was a complete failure.</p><p></p><p>I personally think the maul laws are juat about as good as they can be atm. By allowing players to stay on the wrong side as long as the bind isn't altered, this has depowered the maul enough to make it mostly defendable by a competent defense. Instigating a maul by holding an attacking player off the ground has also been sufficiently mitigated by refs being quick to call a ruck when the attacking player get's a knee to ground. Personally I'd just change the law to give the put-in at a resulting scrum to the attacking side which would eliminate the tactic altogether, but I'm relatively happy with how it is currently.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Problem is that if the law were scrapped, the attacking side would then likely need to send at least one more player into every ruck to secure clean ball = ournumbered in attack = less attacking rugby, less try's and less excitement. I personally don't want to see that, so whilst on the face of it the 'don't play the 9' feels wrong, there's very good reasons for it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dullonien, post: 1092033, member: 13739"] Legally collapsing mauls was trialled a number of years ago. It had the complete opposite outcome to what some here think it would. By not being able to draw defenders into a maul/risk of a maul, defenses just spread as one player waa sent in to take the legs away. It all resulted in more defenders in the line and less space to attack, and generally the trial was a complete failure. I personally think the maul laws are juat about as good as they can be atm. By allowing players to stay on the wrong side as long as the bind isn't altered, this has depowered the maul enough to make it mostly defendable by a competent defense. Instigating a maul by holding an attacking player off the ground has also been sufficiently mitigated by refs being quick to call a ruck when the attacking player get's a knee to ground. Personally I'd just change the law to give the put-in at a resulting scrum to the attacking side which would eliminate the tactic altogether, but I'm relatively happy with how it is currently. Problem is that if the law were scrapped, the attacking side would then likely need to send at least one more player into every ruck to secure clean ball = ournumbered in attack = less attacking rugby, less try's and less excitement. I personally don't want to see that, so whilst on the face of it the 'don't play the 9' feels wrong, there's very good reasons for it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
50:22 and more to be globally trialled by WR
Top