Jeff Probyn’s column: You’re right Steve, new maul is ‘bloody boring’

How unusual, a New Zealand coach bemoaning the opposition’s tactics despite winning the game. Steve Hansen’s complaint about the Argentinian driving maul that allowed their captain Gus Creevy to score two tries has raised questions over the use and legality of the ‘truck and trail’ driving maul once again.
Hansen’s complaint is based on the fact that, if set up properly, there is no legal way to either stop it or compete for the ball and, as much as I hate to say it, he is right.
The maul was always an area where the skills of the forwards as a collective unit were paramount in order to protect and keep the ball, while moving forward with a series of twist and turns.
Mauls used to be set by a ball-carrier remaining on his feet and turning his back to the opposition so that another player could drive him forward while protecting the ball.
Additional players would join the maul either side of the ball carrier and a phalanx of players would enclose the driving player to assist with the drive with the ball remaining at the front of the maul.
As a result, it was always possible for the opposition to challenge for the ball as it was in reasonably close proximity and they could get their hands on it.
Technically, you had to be a well-drilled side to be able to advance more than about five metres before gaps would appear which the opposition would exploit to steal the ball.
Since the advent of the ‘truck and trail’ maul (which I think was devised in Australia) you are able to advance metres up the field virtually unimpeded and without the need for much technical skill.
If my memory serves me correctly, the old maul was bound by the rule that it was an obstruction if a player was in front of the ball carrier, hence the need for the ball remaining at the front of the maul in the hands of the player who set it up.
The carrier was only allowed to pass the ball to a player behind him if he was being removed from the maul.
‘Truck and trail’ mauls deliberately build a wall of players in front of the ball carrier to form a scrum-like structure that is not bound by any of the rules of the scrum.
A ‘truck and trail’ maul can turn through 90 degrees and nothing happens, players can break from a maul and re-join it with no consequences, players can actually hold the opposition without penalty, the opposition can even tackle players (remove them from the maul) without the ball.
The only actions that seem to incur the wrath of the referee are deliberately collapsing a driving maul and entering it from the side.
For some inexplicable reason, the offside line has remained at the front of the maul, despite the fact the ball is at the back, so despite the fact that the ball can be clearly seen by all, the opposition cannot attempt to tackle the ball-carrier while he is in contact with the maul.
And therein could be the reason why World Rugby have encouraged referees to allow it to continue.
While the old-fashioned maul was a far more technical phase of play and an area of true competition for the ball – although those in procession had an advantage – the ball was largely unseen by spectators.
All the efforts of both sets of forwards in trying to either protect or steal the ball and the myriad of other tactical battles that were taking place remained unseen as all a viewing public could see was a huddle of 16 burly men apparently wrestling for something that was out of sight.
With the ball-carrier at the back clearly visible, ‘truck and trail’ immediately changed what was a confusing part of the game for those not versed in the intricate nuances of forward play, to something akin to the ball being passed along the backline to a winger, who then carries the ball unobstructed to the try-line.
With no legal way of effectively stopping it, we have seen an endless amount of time wasted, normally from lineouts, as teams try and build suitable carriage for the ball carrier to glide to the line.
In the eyes of World Rugby it has made the maul more ‘spectator friendly’ even if, as Steve Hansen says, it is “bloody boring”.
The news that World Rugby may be considering their options over Japan 2019 after plans for that country’s national stadium were shelved is worrying and unbelievable.
Japan would become the first country to stage the World Cup outside the foundation Unions – a statement that the game and its rewards are not just the preserve of the chosen few.
There can be no doubt a World Cup there would be a success for competing nations and their supporters given that rugby in Japan is one of the few sports that enjoys royal patronage.
Although the new national stadium will not be completed in time, Yokohama’s 72,000-capacity International Stadium would be a more than adequate replacement for the final. World Rugby should waste no time in removing doubt and confirming the Cup stays in Japan.