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.
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’
I always thought a ‘driving’ maul was the aim, but sometimes you end up with a ‘rolling’ one
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!
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.
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
-1.....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'!
Edit....Just for arguments sake, pivoting around a stationarity point is going to get a call of 'use it'!