[Maul] Maul - Driving or Rolling

[ChrisR]

Not to be pedantic but . . .

As a coach I've always differentiated between between a 'rolling' and 'driving' maul. That seems to have gone out the window.

 

[Decorily]

Not to be pedantic but . . .

As a coach I've always differentiated between between a 'rolling' and 'driving' maul. That seems to have gone out the window.

Elaborate!

Edit....Is there a question or just a statement?

 

[Flish]

Not to be pedantic but . . .

As a coach I've always differentiated between between a 'rolling' and 'driving' maul. That seems to have gone out the window.

love to be educated, always thought of both as meaning a ‘moving maul’

 

[SimonSmith]

love to be educated, always thought of both as meaning a ‘moving maul’

I suspect the difference is the point of attack.
AFAIU, a driving maul is heading roughly due north.
A rolling maul moves the point of attack from side to side - which requires a little more activity from the referee.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

A rolling maul "rolls" around a centre / axis / focal point that point move from goal line to goal line.

A driving maul goes in an aproximately straight line from goal line to goal line.

 

[crossref]

does one involve obstructin ?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Not if done properly.

 

[Flish]

I always thought a ‘driving’ maul was the aim, but sometimes you end up with a ‘rolling’ one

 

[Decorily]

I always thought a ‘driving’ maul was the aim, but sometimes you end up with a ‘rolling’ one

Indeed the aim is to drive forward...but by 'rolling' , or as has been mentioned previously rotating, to change the point of attack the forward movement can be maximised by making it difficult for the defenders to stop the momentum.

 

[didds]

There certainly used to be a distinction made. As time has gone on, for whatever reasons I stopped making the distinctions, or coaching different techniques to acheive one or the other, and concentrated on ball security and power, and let whatever "happens" occur organically at each maul.

I once witnessed a coaching session wrt lineout mauls about "slipping" the ball carrier back through the maul to the rear. All very good - but the team in question werent capable of throwing in straight, and timing the throw to also be caught and then presented. As a skill it was well coached. But given the team couldnt actually get the ball to do it in the first place, totally pointless.

So similarly, I was coaching on the whole at levels where securing the ball and creating a safe (ball wise) ball were the focusses. I never saw the point of coaching rolling and driving maul techniques until I was confident the ball could be secured. presented and played away first. I obviously accept that at more adept levels those nuances have possibly some validity.

 

[Decorily]

I once witnessed a coaching session wrt lineout mauls about "slipping" the ball carrier back through the maul to the rear. All very good - but the team in question werent capable of throwing in straight, and timing the throw to also be caught and then presented. As a skill it was well coached. But given the team couldnt actually get the ball to do it in the first place, totally pointless.
.

Particularly pointless now that it is illegal and is being penalised!

 

[didds]

Particularly pointless now that it is illegal and is being penalised!

This was a few years ago when this rubbish was apparently legal, being fair to the coach (just)

 

[Camquin]

I always thought a rolling maul was when the ball was moved to the back and the ball carrier and some freinds broke off and set up a new maul hopefully with numerical advantage. The defenders have to disengage and get back onside and rejoin.

I have sen this being done and had the ref call same maul, so not resetting the stoppage count. That is the team not in possession probably only need stop it once more.
Whereas a driving maul is one the keeps going with the same pod of players., even if it goes off line.

 

[Decorily]

I always thought a rolling maul was when the ball was moved to the back and the ball carrier and some freinds broke off and set up a new maul hopefully with numerical advantage. The defenders have to disengage and get back onside and rejoin.

I have sen this being done and had the ref call same maul, so not resetting the stoppage count. That is the team not in possession probably only need stop it once more.
Whereas a driving maul is one the keeps going with the same pod of players., even if it goes off line.

It's kind of the same thing but....

If as you say "ball carrier and friends" break off then they cannot set up a new maul ( assuming ball is at back) or that would be obstruction.
The reason the referee calls 'same maul' is to declare that in their opinion no obstruction has occurred and play on as such.
There are a number of factors which must be considered in this scenario such as change in direction.

The defenders do not have to break off and get back onside.

 

[didds]

whereas for completeness (?) my view of a "rolling maul" is one that pivots on a stationary point, taking the defenders away to a side subsequnetly and tghus proving innefective. having rolloed sufficiently it may be a new pivot point is established and the m,aul continues to roll around that new pivit etc.

FWTW

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

It's kind of the same thing but....

If as you say "ball carrier and friends" break off then they cannot set up a new maul ( assuming ball is at back) or that would be obstruction.
The reason the referee calls 'same maul' is to declare that in their opinion no obstruction has occurred and play on as such.
There are a number of factors which must be considered in this scenario such as change in direction.

The defenders do not have to break off and get back onside.

From what I see in Showbiz rugby the ref calls "same maul", when ball carrier and friends break off, simply to make his/her life easy so they don't spoil it for the viewers ;-)

 

[chbg]

whereas for completeness (?) my view of a "rolling maul" is one that pivots on a stationary point, taking the defenders away to a side subsequnetly and tghus proving innefective. having rolloed sufficiently it may be a new pivot point is established and the m,aul continues to roll around that new pivit etc.

FWTW

Agreed

 

[Decorily]

Agreed

-1.....

Is minus 1 a thing?

I've seen +1 used!

Edit....Just for arguments sake, pivoting around a stationarity point is going to get a call of 'use it'!

 

[crossref]

-1.....

Is minus 1 a thing?

I've seen +1 used!

Edit....Just for arguments sake, pivoting around a stationarity point is going to get a call of 'use it'!

if only we had those useful 'like' and 'dislike' buttons

 

[didds]

Edit....Just for arguments sake, pivoting around a stationarity point is going to get a call of 'use it'!

even though the ball is clearly moving upfield albeit its trajectory as seen from above is on an arc ?

the stationary point may be one player while everybody else circles around them.

For visualisation imagine a scrum formation where the loose head stays still but the other seven scrummagers move anti-clockwise and the ball at the number eight moves out and around as if following the circumeference of a circle?

(obviously not as scrum, the analogy purely used to illustrate etc)

didds