The whole basis of rugby union, as opposed to league, is that there is constantly competition for the ball, whether it be at a set-piece, ruck or tackle situation. However, there is one area of the game in which that is becoming increasingly absent and it is having a bigger and bigger influence.
That area of course is the rolling maul and it is one that has sparked much debate in recent times.
We are less than two months out from perhaps the biggest showcase in the history of the game and yet we are in danger of the world getting the wrong impression.
That is no exaggeration. What with the effort to promote the game in new markets over the past four years, namely in North America, you can bet there will be more people than ever tuning in, many of whom may form their opinions of the game based off what they see at this tournament.
Do we really want them to get the idea that rugby is a game in which you kick for the corner, win a lineout and then form a maul which, when done well, is nearly impossible to stop?
The answer there is probably going to be no.
Yet that is what we are heading for, as teams know they can win games by being good in that one area without really being able to do much else.
It is not that there is not a place for the rolling maul in the game, but the laws that govern the way it can be defended could do with being looked at. Making it harder for the attacking team would limit its use, or at least mean that teams would have to have more skill in executing.
The problem comes in the lack of contest for the ball. Teams will set a platform where they have two, three or even four players between the ball carrier and the opposition, yet the defence has to stay at the hindmost foot just like in a ruck.
That law works in a ruck, as a tackled player must release the ball and the rules surrounding offsides dictate the way the ball can be competed for. In a maul the ball is not being competed for, not the way it is being done these days at least.
Essentially you have a player on their feet, carrying the ball and moving forward. Yet you cannot tackle them and you cannot come around to take the ball off them.
For an attacking team it is a bit too easy. If the defensive team decides to commit equal numbers to stop the push, then the player at the back can break off, as there will be holes close-in and they should have a second or so head start while the defence reacts. However, if the defence does not commit equal numbers, the attacking team will begin to gain forward momentum, which is just so hard to stop once it starts.
There is not much else you can do. Sacking the jumper before the maul is formed is an option. A good team will ensure the players are there to form the maul almost instantly to deny the defence this opportunity though and if you get the timing wrong you give away a penalty.
So where do you go from there?
Hansen's comments surrounding allowing the maul to be collapsed make sense. Why not turn the challenge around on the attacking team? With this law in place, a good mauling team would not only have to be able to set a good platform and offer strong leg-drive, but they would have to keep their balance and make sure they are not being pulled down at the same time.
Now that would take some skill and if a team could manage to be effective through mauling in that manner, then you would have to say that they are indeed good at what they do.
Another option would be to do away with the offside lines once a maul has formed. Given no one has left their feet and the ball carrier is moving forward, it would make sense to keep the contest for the ball alive.
Protecting the ball would then become the challenge. You could not just feed the ball to the back, as that would leave the ball exposed to players coming around. Likewise if it was held in the front it could be easily tied up. You could try to trap it somewhere in the middle, but you would have to do that well to ensure no one from the defending team could get near the ball.
At least either of those options would create a challenge for the attacking team and retain the contest for the ball that is inherent in virtually every other area of the game.
There are those that will argue that the maul is just part of the game whether you like it or not. But how big a part it plays in determining the outcome is also worth considering.
Basically it comes down to what type of game you want to promote.
Surely it would be better to create a game where teams are looking to score from wherever they can, rather than one where they are just looking for penalties that they can kick down the line and then set up mauls off.
As far as attracting new fans, that would certainly seem the logical approach and indeed, in retaining old fans, it would also seem the logical approach.
