Tri-Nations safety worries over new maul rule

[travelling_gerry]

Tri-Nations safety worries over new maul rule



The All Blacks and Springboks have both expressed deep concern at the new maul collapsing rule and its implications for safety ahead of Saturday’s Tri-Nations rugby Test in Wellington.


The International Rugby Board (IRB) has restored the Experimental Law Variations trialled in this year’s Super 14 for the Tri-Nations and added two extra laws.
One relates to lineout, where teams now don’t have to match the number of players of the team throwing in.

rest of article here

[pieter blackie]

get the betting going for the 3N tg

[Burgs]

It is certainly one that has me scratching my head, there is no way they could argue it is safer and therefore they are trying something that is more dangerous.

[pieter blackie]

here is a interesting read on the same topic of rules


Rules: What a circus!

[jono]

i dont think it should be trialled.
espically in the wake of the two deaths in recent times.
the 14's ELVs were good enough. made the game faster and more flowing.
but if the variation is going to put players in danger i dont really think that it is needed or safe.

[AndyS]

I don't like it particularly but, the flip side of the argument is that mauls are collapsed now (regularly, in fact) and few get hurt - question could be put, are they hurt because they weren't expecting it to be collapsed?

[jono]

perhaps.
but if your in a maul you might find yourself at the bottom if it was collapsed.
you cant be ready for 3 or 4 blokes on top of you, espically if the forwards packed into it to stop a turnover. if you were to fall in an akward posistion you could be more suseptable to injury when the forwards pack in

[Burgs]

The more it happens the more the risk.
To me some of these ELV's wouldn't be needed if the Laws were enforced much harder.
Might have a shit year of only twelve men finishing a match but at least the message would get through eventually.
Collapse a maul on your try line and it is a penalty try, therefore should be a yellow card anywhere on the field.

[.X.]

Forgive my ignorance but was this rule (Collapsing the maul) part of the original proposed law variations (Stellanbosch)? Why would you include a new rule on top of what has been trialled over various competitions for over 2 years now?

[beige]

Forgive my ignorance but was this rule (Collapsing the maul) part of the original proposed law variations (Stellanbosch)?

Yes. Wasn't used in Super 14 obviously...

[Moses]

That's right X, it was part of the original ELV's that they trialled in the ARC to unanimous dis-approval. As such it was dropped from the S14 ELV's.

[shasta]

Not sure but I think the reasoning was that a well organised and executed maul is just about impossible to defend. Better for deficient teams to lift their game than introduce dangerous rule changes. I've said it elsewhere but the main gripe I have with mauls is that they are hard to defend because referees don't penalise obstruction strictly and consistently enough.

[BLR]

Why would you include a new rule on top of what has been trialled over various competitions for over 2 years now?

Because despite all the tough talk by the NH when it came for them to have a say on all the issues they folded like Baxtah.

[Flamethrower]

I've never spent much time in the mauls with the smelly pigs. Would it be better to know that the maul will collapse rather than be surprised when it does collapse??

[thunderchicken9]

yeah FT, it would, but there's always that guy, the gamer, who'd be caught in between...