If we believe that quick ball is good ball, generally, rucks allow much quicker recycling of the ball than a maul. How about looking at it this way.
Ruck... If the tackle knocks you back on your butt.
Maul... If you can keep your feet in the tackle.
Keep running... If the tackle is along the lines of "I tagged him ref but he kept running.
NEGOTIATING THE TACKLE... supporters are expected to go into contact with the ballcarrier, creating the basis for a Bridge even before the application of Law 18. The supporter is expected to help the ballcarrier negotiate-- or break-- the tackle.The modern ruck is usually initiated by a ballcarrier going to ground deliberately and on his own terms. Skilled teams will ensure that there are supporters close by with a clear plan to recycle the ball. In order to play an open, flowing and attractive style, it is necessary to negotiate tackle to ruck with 80-90% success. Otherwise, it makes more tactical sense to whack the ball up the field, turning it over closer to the opposition goal line.
WHEN TO RUCK WHEN TO MAUL OR ....NOT AT ALL
Ruck when going forward over the gain line (to maintain momentum) and maul when going back over the gain line (to give your defence time to gather).However if a maul is set up from a set piece (when numbers near are large) then drive and roll esp. near their lineThe decision to ruck or maul does not rest with the ball carrier but rather the support players. Throughout the year we discuss that in each spot on the field and in different situations there is a desired mode of recycling. All teams probably do this already so that the all players become more proficient at decision making.When the ball carrier approaches a contact situation the closest support player verbally communicates what is to be done with the ball, pass (which direction and relatively how far), ruck (if we have sufficient numbers and a pass wouldn't work) and maul (if we are outnumbered or unorganized).In practice I use a continuum of decision making drills taking players through all sorts of situations building to a 10 vs 10 continuous drill that resembles league.
THE FRENCH PERSPECTIVE
Ok, it's often the suggestion but I'm not sure it's a good idea to focus on the ground transformation when going forward.You could try to play more on your feet, and to go forward between defenders the fitness and ability of the team to play rucks after rucks ..I think you can play with systematic rucks if (and only if) you are stronger (quicker and bigger) than the other team. But it's stupid to play "on ground" if your are not stronger.
Actually, I think the problem is not to choose between Ruck and Maul, but between to ways to "transform" the movement of the ball : on ground or on feet ! You are not obliged to build mauls if you play "on feet",and you consider that, during the movement, a maul is an accident. If you use systematic rucks, it is often that you want to make a big pressure "one against one" player. The transformation is on ground and you try to "push" on the gain line. When you prefer to play "on feet", you try to find "open doors" in the gain line. The conception of the game is not the same.
The reply....
I do not agree that a maul is accidental any more than any other activity on the rugby pitch. Whether a ruck or a maul, it is, hopefully, a planned reaction to the situation which lies before the team on the offense. A ruck can be desired, but if there is five of them and one of you, I'd think that the ball carrier would pick an alternative option. I agree with the concept of "transformation". A good team's play will flow as opposed to fits of starts and stops. This will be because the team recognizes each situation as it developes and presents its solution, based on the situation.
Too many rugby clubs have placed all their cookies into ruck after ruck after ruck . Boring! The technical skills and options from a ruck are limitied. Super 12 and the way the referees interepret has demonstrated the value of the ruck, but we must take care and understand that rugby is multi layered and far more subtle than the simplistic multi phase rucking we are witnessing on the pitch. I have talked with young US collegiate players that have not been taught or even know how to maul! .... "This will be because the team recognizes each situation as it developes and presents its solution, based on the situation." I read somwhere in a sport book that someone somewhere once said that instead of trying to convince players of the validity of your game plan (or teach them the skills to impliment your game plan), it's easier to just pick players that already agree with you (and already have the skills you desire).
Which brings me back to the above, quite correct, statement. The team, as much as we hate to admit it, is made of fifteen individuals, and each of these individuals "see" each situation, and each solution slightly diferantly to their team mates. And I imagine will see a solution that fits in with their skill set. I know from my own experience that when ever I got in trouble I'd just hit the ball up as straight as I could and make the R v. M decision based on the effectivness of the tackles encountered. For the first few years I played this was my only solution - I either did not have the vision or the skills to look for another option. I had team mates that were less effective at hitting up, but that possesed a wider vision, and skills to take other options than I.
I) ruck to ruck to ruck, IS very effective, provided your fit, your good at it, and they are quick, and your backs know how to attack the advantage line.II) rugby is a multi layered game. It is. When I coached , I did not coach to win, the approach was to teach as many of the players, as much as I could about rugby as possible.By seasons end we were reasonably proficent at the building blocks of rugby - never won anything, but the players who decided to keep with the game had the foundations down. Three years later, , we also worked hard on the multi layers of the game. But the multi layers we rehersed at traing were only used as the standard of the opposition demanded. The games we won by seventy points hardly featured a ruck, maul or anything. The final which we won 7-5 featured everything we had in the locker, everything! So to say ruck to ruck to ruck rugby is boring is a simplistic statement, to me simplistic un-imaginative rugby is boring.III) If colegiate players don't know how to maul, then that is not an inditement against the ruck, it is an inditement against their coaching. I know with my team , that none of the forwards had any idea on how to roll a maul, so somewhere in their past their coaches must have decided it know longer had a place in rugby. If I had last season over again, Id teach them how to roll a maul, because ugly as it is, it can be quite devistating.
Everybody in a rugby club needs to know how to do all of the basics in the open field. Even if it's not useful for your type of team on offense, you need to know how to handle it on defense. How can you know how to handle, say a ruck or maul, on defense, if you don't know how it's constructed on offense? To me, a coach's reputation is based very much on the knowledge that his/her players take with them to the next level. For any coach to teach just what serves him/her in the short term is very shortsighted and selfish.I would have thought that the decision to ruck or maul would be pretty straight-forward ... on offence you ruck your ball, on defence you maul their ball. Why? For a number of reasons.On offence, if the ball does not come as quickly as you want or becomes buried, the referee is going to award a scrummage to the team going forward prior to the formation of the ruck . hopefully your side and therefore your put-in - retain posnIf the opposition are not proficient at staying on their feet or deliberately cause a pile up, the referee should award your side a penalty -- retain possession.
On defence, mauling their ball effectively means tying the ball up and stopping any forward movement of the maul long enough for the referee to award a scrummage to the team NOT in possession prior to the formation of the maul ... your side -- gaining possession.
My thoughts are that regardless of the type of players you have they must all - backs and forwards - must be able to execute the basics of the game (running, passing, catching, tackling, kicking, rucking, mauling, etc.) because once the set piece is over they are rugby players not forwards or backs. Granted in open play the 'back' will try to run the ball using switches, overlaps, et al while the 'forward' is likely to take to ball straight up and set the quick ruck, but the underlying principle holds - basics are basics on any team for any type of player.
The style that a team chooses to play may suggest one player over another at selection time but they all still need to be able to ruck or maul and know when one is more appropriate than the other.
While it is important to teach as a coach, it is also important to prepare the team to achieve their goals and that always involves doing their best to win - who wants to go out to play and lose even if you are learning?
.. all coaches need to be passing on all of the tools that are the building blocks and signature of rugby ...I would like to add another "strength" to the maul.
Consolidation of players with limited abilities. Now stay with me here for just a little. A good rolling maul presents the ball carrier to the opposition for only limited periods of time, while keeping the ball secure for a prolonged period of time (theoretically, until a driver rolls the wrong way and holds the ball out to the opposition!). Coming from a tinny club with tinny players one injury can spell the end of our season some times. Using the maul is the best way to secure the ball WHILE securing the player and the rookies.
Both ruck and maul requires split timing precision, however I believe the maul (slower) is more forgiving. It also allows for the rookies to literally be led by the hand until they become more confident and able.Needles to say in our history (specially years of few players) we use mauls whenever possible. Also, having few players means limited opposition practices which produces players that are good at "start and stop" rugby and are weak in open play (yes I know it is what rugby is about).
This I share particularly with the teams that have few players. It can be a real season saver, and the maul ,while it is a lot slower ,it can be not only effective but a lot of fun to take part in.
I guess I should have written out that if you want to do this you MUST have a good rolling maul! Other wise you dig your own grave. But to wrap it up , It very much shows it's worth on the pitch especially when we play the teams that don't know how to stop the roll in the rolling maul, and they end up doing ALL of the work for us (while chronically stepping off sides and giving us the advantage). I have seen the frustration in the eyes of the players that don't know what a maul is or how to stop it, "where the hell is the ball" is usually a precursor to them running off sides. However, this extreme level of confusion only happens 1 maybe 2 times in a season, but it shows how that club should have spent some time learning how to take a maul apart.
... that the players should be expected to go either way based on two very important parts to the game that as Coaches we tend to overlook, what laws benifit us and how are the opposition reacting. As an example we know that in the ruck situation the offside line of the defence stays the same, but the offside line of the dynamic maul changes as the attacking side goes forward.While the ruck has its place, the dynamic maul can be very devastating if done properly. Ask any back on how or when they want the ball delivered they would probably say fast ball and able to run on to it, I would add to that controlled fast ball, going forward against a team that has less players in defence than you have in attack. This can be achieved from dynamic mauls where you commit more defenders to the tackle area and then dont have them wandering the backline as extra bodies as you would if your team was to ruck all the time.
To say that "you ruck on offense, maul of defense" is a blanket statement. Blanket statements are carried out, again to me, for one of two reasons. The coach is working with a team with limited knowledge/skills and it's all that they know to date. The coach him/herself is working with limited knowledge or skills. My point is that most players need to be clear on what they do in most situations - although being able to think on your feet is very important as well - that is why I suggest, Ruck - Offence .. Maul - Defence.
I believe that most players, even at the top level, in the heat of battle, do not think that quickly. They react. They rely on instinct - isn't that why we drill them over and over to execute certain skills, so that don't react, they act!
If we believe that quick ball is good ball, generally, rucks allow much quicker recycling of the ball than a maul. How about looking at it this way.
Ruck... If the tackle knocks you back on your butt.
Maul... If you can keep your feet in the tackle.
Keep running... If the tackle is along the lines of "I tagged him ref but he kept running.
"EFFECTIVE CONTACT SKILLS"
The RUCK STRENGTHS: 1. Ruck ball is good quick running ball 2. Ruck ball allows you to attack in the same channel 3. Continuous "mini-rucks" are difficult to thwart4. Ideal when you are going forward
WEAKNESSES: 1. Players loosing balance and stability putting them out of the game 2. Easy to turn over possession 3. Source of penalties (technical and other infringements)
OPPORTUNITIES: 1. Quick ball providing many options2. We "Go Forward" 3. We can dominate the opposition 4. A fast, free flowing game is spectator friendly
THREATS: 1. "Pile-Up" at tackle 2. (Inexperienced) players may find it dangerous 3. "mini-rucks" set no off-side line for the backs
The MAUL
STRENGTHS: 1. Mauled ball is controlled ball 2. Well balanced driving maul is very difficult to stop 3. Driving maul pulls in fringing oppn forwards and creates space for backs 4. We can maul from restarts, lineouts, free-kicks, set plays ,backrow moves WEAKNESSES: 1. We MUST "Use It, or Lose It" 2. Can end up delivering slow ball thus allowing the opposition time to re-organize its defence 3. It is energy sapping to the players OPPORTUNITIES: 1. Roll it Away - Rolling Mauls are also difficult to combat! 2. Can help buy time in defence 3. Allows us to exert our physical dominance 4. Allows us to play to our strengths (keep their backs out of the game) THREATS: 1. Limits our options if we over-play the role of the maul(This is true of most aspects in our game ...) 2. Games with high proportion of mauls can be unattractive to spectators
......More on mauls
I suspect that there is some confusion here over what type of maul isinvolved. There is, of course, more than one kind of maul. It may be better to drive (big step) into a maul when you are attacking but better to stop and get under control when you are behind your own team.
Think about where you might be in a given maul situation. There is the old adage that we "ruck going forward, maul in defense." This is generally true, but there are times when you may intentionally maul in attack.
Assuming first that you are behind most of your team mates, when you find yourself isolated you are in a situation where you need to control the ball and buy time to allow your friends to arrive. If you drive aggressively into the tackler, you are likely to lose your feet when tackled and, according to the Laws, have to release the ball. This is obviously not a good thing in terms of ensuring recycled ball to your own side. Alternatively, if you get control of yourself, slow down, get low, and attack the tackler with your body while protecting the ball, you have retained possession on your feet and delayed having to release the ball. Hopefully this allows your team mates to get back and help.
The deal of a strong upper body "pop" and hard step into the tackler , in attack works well if you are bigger than your opponent, if he or she is tackling you high (wrapping you up) and not taking you to ground (what I call "dancing" with you), and when you choose that the best Continuity skill you can employ is to maul. Mauling going forward gives you a greater number of options in the next phase than rucking, but it does run the risk of a turnover if the ballgets tied-up. Popping the opponent drives him/her back and allows you to get your feet under you, to hold the ball in your hindmost arm and to show it to your team mates, and to set a strong driving offensive platform. If you happen to fall down, nothing much is lost as you can still place the ball and set a ruck. Stopping under these conditions slows everything down and, in attacking situations, time favors the defense. Slowing down to maul in attack is a no-no.
Offensive mauling and defensive mauling are somewhat different.
Both techniques, slowing and stopping and taking a hard step and pop, have their place in Rugby. You need to decide when to use each and then coach your team how you think it should be done. If a player is isolated indeed, the almost certain outcome is that you they will end up loosing the ball, and perhaps even your desperate forwards will arrive at such pace that they will spill forward on the ruck. If that ball was lost at a maul, the forwards will pile in and drive it as the ball is being released, and might continue to drive thinking they are making a difference.
The "base ball bat" will take a player that has had a phenomenal 20 meter run (into isolation) that should go to a ruck (rugby fundamental) but instead makes it into a maul. The SPACE that is critical for keeping control of the ball is created on the OTHER side of the contact. In essence the player "bats" at the would be tacklers and sets up a target for the slow-to-arrive support. For us it has worked miracles at times, with the added comical element. Effectively you turn a 20 meter run into oblivion, into a 20 meter run with a 10 meter loss... Do the math.
We were taught that Ball Carrier who: (a) knows he is without close support, and (b) is taking ball toward contact should NOT go with full pace and "big step" and thereby attempt to create separation. Instead, we were told to coach ballcarrier to STOP dead in tracks in maul situations, create wide base, prepare to fend off with arm...WAIT FOR TACKLER(S) to make contact with ballcarrier! Up to now, we had taught our players to always go forward, keep the drive/momentum up...especially in mauls when going into certain contact with tackler(s).
Firstly though, remember the conditions - no close support, going toward contact (not vice-versa). Mind you, don't stop miles away. If the ball carrier is running towards a defender , the latter is probably stationary (waiting to put a big step-in tackle on you) so by stopping a metre before you take the initiative away and he has to come to you and generate all the pace (he is unlikely to manage a bit hit in that short space) and the ball carrier is able to adopt a very stable posture (ball on farthest hip, wide low stance) and fend off (I've seen players last several seconds in those situations - try it).In other situations, big step, drive up, sweep away but don't drive too far and get isolated from support - let support players provide the momentum with "low,little legs". i.e. short, slow, deliberate steps so that the maul moves forward relatively slowly but under stable control. Its also worth bearing in mind - maul behing gain line and ruck in front.
.....regarding the stationary maul.
Actually, it's can be the opposite of the tackler's dream and end up as his/her nightmare. The fact is that in setting the wide base and fending the tackler the part previously omitted is that the wide base must be low. I'm 6'2". But when I set the low, wide base, my thighs are parallel to the ground and obscured by the hips. The only thing presented to the tackler is a "hard part" of my body. If they come in at pace, they're going to get hurt hitting a hip, an elbow or a knee. Therefore, they come in high and try to wrestle more than 90% of the time.
That other 10% usually ends up hurt. Either way, I've still maintained control of the ball. When coaching women, I found this worked very well. Men or women, the stationary platform is especially effective late in the game when the team is tired and "stumbling" into rucks. The stationary target presents stability. The only issue then is getting quick ball back.....how to defeat bridging. I bridged over ball and player -- and he cleaned me out of there, by coming down as low, shoulder to shoulder, and shovelling me up with his clenched right forearm. Mind you, this was sturdy prop hefting a nearly anorexic flanker, but was still done in so deft a manner that, unless he were on top of us, I doubt the referee would have picked up the fist in the solar plexus that encouraged me to retreat from the bridge.
If one were to consider concientiously his technique, the blow, accompanying the lift, loosens one up, takes away concentration from the bridge.
