Rolling Mauls in Rugby League

[eal]

I am curious why teams never employ rolling mauls in Rugby League? Are they illegal? I often think when a ball runner gets tackled close to the try line that they would have made it over had a few of his team mates piled in and driven him over. We see mauls used as a form of defence when multiple players drive a ball runner backwards, what's to stop multiple players driving a ball runner forwards? I get that you wouldn't want to obstruct offloads, but if a player is close to the try line surely it would be a good tactic to commit to a maul and aim to drive the ball runner over the line.

I am wondering if someone much more knowledgable than I could explain why mauls would be a bad idea from an attacking standpoint.

[ELBOWSEYE]

I don't know how long this will stay on this section, but I see it in union and wonder how many obstructions a rolling maul can manage in one rolling maul, if it had proper rules it should be one then the ref blows for a penalty. 

I think that about covers your question. 

[eal]

15 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I don't know how long this will stay on this section, but I see it in union and wonder how many obstructions a rolling maul can manage in one rolling maul, if it had proper rules it should be one then the ref blows for a penalty. 

I think that about covers your question. 

What if the ball carrier stayed at the front of the maul and the joining players were all behind the ball?

[Copa]

The flying wedge!

And while we’re at it.... the wall!

 

[Whippet13]

7 minutes ago, eal said:

What if the ball carrier stayed at the front of the maul and the joining players were all behind the ball?

Behind the ball? So a group of players pushing one individual forward from behind him, whilst another group to his front push him backwards? Being the ball carrier doesn't sound like the safest place to be.

[voteronniegibbs]

34 minutes ago, eal said:

I am curious why teams never employ rolling mauls in Rugby League? Are they illegal?

Moving tackled player 2. (a) Where opponents do not make a tackle effective in the quickest possible manner but attempt to push, pull or carry the player in possession, it is permissible for colleagues of the tackled player to lend their weight in order to avoid losing ground. Immediately this happens the referee should call “Held”.

so yes, they are illegal

[M j M]

15 minutes ago, voteronniegibbs said:

Moving tackled player 2. (a) Where opponents do not make a tackle effective in the quickest possible manner but attempt to push, pull or carry the player in possession, it is permissible for colleagues of the tackled player to lend their weight in order to avoid losing ground. Immediately this happens the referee should call “Held”.

so yes, they are illegal

And thank God for that.

The thought of this sort of thing on a Rugby League pitch makes me want to vomit.

[The storm]

57 minutes ago, eal said:

I am curious why teams never employ rolling mauls in Rugby League? Are they illegal? I often think when a ball runner gets tackled close to the try line that they would have made it over had a few of his team mates piled in and driven him over. We see mauls used as a form of defence when multiple players drive a ball runner backwards, what's to stop multiple players driving a ball runner forwards? I get that you wouldn't want to obstruct offloads, but if a player is close to the try line surely it would be a good tactic to commit to a maul and aim to drive the ball runner over the line.

I am wondering if someone much more knowledgable than I could explain why mauls would be a bad idea from an attacking standpoint.

Its obstruction 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, The storm said:

Its obstruction 

Only if the mauling players are infront of the ball carrier

[barnyia]

As soon as a player is touched by one of his own players whilst being tackled, held should be called. I believe thats the rule isnt it? 

[topcentre21]

Soon as attacking players join in tackle the ref should be shouting hekd i believe 

[topcentre21]

1 minute ago, barnyia said:

As soon as a player is touched by one of his own players whilst being tackled, held should be called. I believe thats the rule isnt it? 

Just seen this!

[Angelic Upstart]

1 hour ago, eal said:

What if the ball carrier stayed at the front of the maul and the joining players were all behind the ball?

That's the Conga not a maul.

[MZH]

31 minutes ago, barnyia said:

As soon as a player is touched by one of his own players whilst being tackled, held should be called. I believe thats the rule isnt it? 

Yes, and even if that rule wasn't there, a ball carrier being help up in the middle of a big maul like that wouldn't have a cat in hells chance of actually managing to ground the ball. So there's little point in trying.

[MZH]

1 hour ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I don't know how long this will stay on this section, but I see it in union and wonder how many obstructions a rolling maul can manage in one rolling maul, if it had proper rules it should be one then the ref blows for a penalty. 

I think that about covers your question. 

Tbf mate it's a different sport with different rules. If you are going to make that argument then you may as well complain about basketball players being allowed to pass the ball forwards whilst you're at it.

[voteronniegibbs]

8 minutes ago, MZH said:

Tbf mate it's a different sport with different rules. If you are going to make that argument then you may as well complain about basketball players being allowed to pass the ball forwards whilst you're at it.

and if we're going to compare it to basketball then we'll have to put roofs on all our grounds........

 

mind you we could play in winter again if we did that 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

5 minutes ago, voteronniegibbs said:

and if we're going to compare it to basketball then we'll have to put roofs on all our grounds........

 

mind you we could play in winter again if we did that 

We could play in winter again anyway, did something happen 25 years ago that meant rugby league players were suddenly allergic to mud and a cold breeze? 

[voteronniegibbs]

2 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

We could play in winter again anyway, did something happen 25 years ago that meant rugby league players were suddenly allergic to mud and a cold breeze? 

yes, deep heat and tiger balm were listed as illegal stimulants

 

[langpark]

A single push in the back of a team-mate, especially near the tryline, I believe has always been acceptable in Rugby League, for as long as I can remember.  I can't say I have ever seen a union-style maul happen during a RL match, but I am sure if it did happen, it would get penalised.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, eal said:

I am curious why teams never employ rolling mauls in Rugby League? Are they illegal? I often think when a ball runner gets tackled close to the try line that they would have made it over had a few of his team mates piled in and driven him over. We see mauls used as a form of defence when multiple players drive a ball runner backwards, what's to stop multiple players driving a ball runner forwards? I get that you wouldn't want to obstruct offloads, but if a player is close to the try line surely it would be a good tactic to commit to a maul and aim to drive the ball runner over the line.

I am wondering if someone much more knowledgable than I could explain why mauls would be a bad idea from an attacking standpoint.

Ha! I spend a lot of time deriding that **** from those boring 5m Exeter ****s most weeks. Leave well alone

Bedfordshire Bronco (London Broncos and Northampton fan) 

[Trojan]

I once saw it happen at  P O Road.   The maul, for that's all I can call it crossed the goal line and the ball popped out, Deryck Fox touched it down. I wouldn't have given it. but the ref did.  It was against Batley IIRC

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

14 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

We could play in winter again anyway, did something happen 25 years ago that meant rugby league players were suddenly allergic to mud and a cold breeze? 

No but as a spectator I did Goose

[Trojan]

2 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Ha! I spend a lot of time deriding that **** from those boring 5m Exeter ****s most weeks. Leave well alone

Bedfordshire Bronco (London Broncos and Northampton fan) 

I certainly think that the melee near the line resulting in  a score is becoming more common in Union.  And as you say Exeter appear to be past masters. If that's what the fans want fair play to them.  It's not what I want.   Scotland's second try this afternoon is what I call Rugby.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

2 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

No but as a spectator I did Goose

Who did you goose?? 

[voteronniegibbs]

1 minute ago, Trojan said:

I once saw it happen at  P O Road.   The maul, for that's all I can call it crossed the goal line and the ball popped out, Deryck Fox touched it down. I wouldn't have given it. but the ref did.  It was against Batley IIRC

I can only recall seeing one, at Wheldon Road, it would have got over the try line but the ref blew his whistle, penalty IIRC for mauling