Static Mauls

[Darc Tiger]

Haven't watched too many Tigers games recently, but the static maul was very apparent as a tactic today from both sides. I haven't seen us use it until today though. But I have seen it used by Sarries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like something that has only really arisen this season.

What are peoples opinions on it? It is within the laws, and useful, but it just seems a bit farcical.

[Bill W (2)]

What are peoples opinions on it? It is within the laws, and useful, but it just seems a bit farcical.

It is fine if used to become dynamic. If it stays static, of course, you risk losing possession (scrum oponents put in). Most refs will cry "use it" before blowing up - but they are not obliged to do so.

[Darc Tiger]

Perhaps I should be more clear. I refer to the trail of men behind a ruck, to give the scrum half breathing space to kick. Players come in and bind to the ruck after ball has been secured, one behind the other, in a line for about 2-3m. The commentators referred to it as a static maul today. Only really seen it used this season, and for the first time, from us today.

[Bill W (2)]

Apologies. The lengthening of a ruck does mean committing ever more men to said ruck and force your attack to lie further back (behind rearmost foot).

As a way of protecting the SH it is fair enough!

IMHO

[PM76]

The first side I saw use them was Saracens earlier this year and it is a good idea. Not exactly enthralling but when used correctly as it was today it is useful strategy to get out of trouble. It gives the SH more time to box kick and reduces the chance of a charge down if the ball is passed to the 10 and from a box kick.

[WiggoTiger]

Sorry thought the thread was about our usual play!!

Sarries have used this for ages as it fits in with their KICKING game plans!

[Easty]

I noticed that Wayne Barnes has already started to rewrite the rule book in regards to this 'elongated' ruck. In the game at the weekend he kept warning teams to 'use it' or he'd scrum.

The ball was on the ground, there were no hands on it, it was secured within a legal ruck - now others may be better informed, but as far as I'm aware there is no 'rule', 'law' or 'protocol' that states you have a time limit on how long the ball can stay in a ruck.

If I'm right, where does WB get off thinking he can just 'invent' rules to suit what he wants? Don't get me wrong, it can be very tedious and frustrating (depending on who is doing it) but that's for the law makers to correct, not an 'I have to be the centre of attention' ref as Barnes has become.

[sapajo]

Sorry thought the thread was about our usual play!!

Sarries have used this for ages as it fits in with their KICKING game plans!

Hate to say through clenched teeth, but sarries kicking game is second to none in the premiership!

[Bill W (2)]

I noticed that Wayne Barnes has already started to rewrite the rule book in regards to this 'elongated' ruck. In the game at the weekend he kept warning teams to 'use it' or he'd scrum.

The ball was on the ground, there were no hands on it, it was secured within a legal ruck - now others may be better informed, but as far as I'm aware there is no 'rule', 'law' or 'protocol' that states you have a time limit on how long the ball can stay in a ruck.

If I'm right, where does WB get off thinking he can just 'invent' rules to suit what he wants? Don't get me wrong, it can be very tedious and frustrating (depending on who is doing it) but that's for the law makers to correct, not an 'I have to be the centre of attention' ref as Barnes has become.

Whilst I have not checked (if I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me) the laws of the game merely state that if a ball is not emerging from a ruck the referee shall call a scrum put in to the side with possession or having possession when the ruck formed (whereas for a maul it is put in to the side not in possession).

In a maul this gives rise to the "use it or lose it" protocol whereby the ref will warn the side of a stationary maul that if they do not use the ball he will call a scrum and they will lose possession.

For a stationary ruck the side in possession would keep possession so W. Barnes' "threat" was pretty meaningless (other than it would waste more time which presumably is what the side in possession were trying to do anyway.)

There is, insofar as I am aware, no time limit on how long you can keep a ball in either a ruck or a maul although once a maul has ceased to move refs do call "use it or lose it" As outlined above for a ruck this protocol would be pretty meaningless since the side not "using it" would not "lose it".