Rolling Maul !

I was thinking the same thing, italy did it to england in the 6n a few years ago IIRC

Ban the rolling maul or blow up if it goes over 10m.

Some good points boys,but unless the ball-carrier his at the front of the maul it his illegal,we see the 7 forwards,obstructing the opposition,the irb and officials need to sort this out .

157cb wrote: Some good points boys,but unless the ball-carrier his at the front of the maul it his illegal,we see the 7 forwards,obstructing the opposition,the irb and officials need to sort this out .     Treviso offered nothing today,apart from an illegal maul .     Take nothing away,from an excellent performance,by our young scarlets side .

Unless they go truck and trailer a rolling maul is maul and has been used for years. Tigers were the Kings of this territory for ages. No point in winging about it we need to learn how to deal with it or for like periods of time today we will get continually bullied but by teams who can then cut us to pieces. We need to learn to fight fire with fire!

157cb wrote:  But turkish its not legal,and the irb need to sort it out,or change the rules,so that the ball-carrier,is allowed to have seven forwards in front of him,with no offside or obstruction .

I thnk you'll find it is legal, although since as you say as a form of legalised obstruction which is very difficult to defend against if done well, it perhaps ought not to be.  But currently, as long as all players are bound, and at least two of them are from opposing sides, it's a maul.  Since a maul is supposed to be a competition for a ball that is off the ground, between players who are on their feet, it is clear that the kind of rolling maul we all too often clearly does not allow such competition  Like you, I hate the damn'd things, and wish the experiment in allowing them to be collapsed had continued.  But they are, alas, legal.

I don't think I have ever seen a team so devoid of any rugby playing nouse as those Treviso muppetts yesterday...you may as well have gone down Wind street and put all the bouncers in a rugby shirt.

Dan the Drover wrote: 157cb wrote:  But turkish its not legal,and the irb need to sort it out,or change the rules,so that the ball-carrier,is allowed to have seven forwards in front of him,with no offside or obstruction .     I thnk you'll find it is legal, although since as you say as a form of legalised obstruction which is very difficult to defend against if done well, it perhaps ought not to be.  But currently, as long as all players are bound, and at least two of them are from opposing sides, it's a maul.  Since a maul is supposed to be a competition for a ball that is off the ground, between players who are on their feet, it is clear that the kind of rolling maul we all too often clearly does not allow such competition  Like you, I hate the damn'd things, and wish the experiment in allowing them to be collapsed had continued.  But they are, alas, legal.

I think you corectly sum up the way refs interpret the laws at present. I have argued for many years that the rolling maul is obstruction - and should be illegal. It was made illegal for a season recently, but then unfortunately the law was changed back again. IMHO, no tactic which makes it impossible for the defending team to tackle the ball carrier should be allowed - be it 'crossing', or the rolling maul.

Besides which, it is an ugly and boring tactic - no doubt this is why it was praised by the English commentators on Sky yesterday!

The only time we have managed to defend the rolling mawl is when Rhys Thomas has been on the pitch