Thursday, June 26th, 2008...9:59 am

ELVs – Collapsed maul results in DEATH !

Jump to Comments

Source: Wallabies maul controversial ELV  – Neil Reid

Wallabies forwards coach Michael Foley has spoken out about the risk of serious injury by the experimental law variation which allows defending sides to drag down attacking mauls.

Foley has spoken out following the death of wing Juan Cruz Migliore who died from a broken neck when a maul was collapsed in an Argentine club game last weekend.

While Sanzar did not trial the collapsed maul law in the limited ELVs it used in the Rebel Sport Super 14, the experimental law is permitted in the upcoming global trial of the ELVs.

Foley, a former test front-rower, said Migliore’s death highlighted the potential for danger in allowing mauls to be collapsed.

My Comments: Da, IRB what more do you need !

More here: ELVs – Endangered Species: Maul and Lineout



1 Comment

  •   Hywel
    June 27th, 2008 at 2:59 am    

    Legislating against something in rugby does not necessarily mean it will disappear. The law against collapsing mauls was passed fairly recently and as far as I’m aware it was not backed up by sound research. Recent research has found no evidence that it has improved things. It might be counter-intuitive but it’s not difficult to offer possible explanations. I suspect that by restricting the ability to defend against an advancing maul the legislators have handed a massive incentive to sides to use the tactic more often and to carry on advancing longer, (exhausting the players involved). Mauls still collapse accidentally or deliberately and often with fatigue a factor, (and the tragedy in where the ELVs did not apply Argentina just underlines this). Allowing defenders to collapse a maul would be removing a discredited law. If the IRB decide to retain the law in the interests of safety they would be well advised to detune it by trying to legislate to encourage early release of the ball. Rucks and mauls were designed to allow the ball to be recycled. There used to be an advantage to getting a little nudge on before releasing and using the possession. If sides are allowed to mother the ball for yard-after-yard tragic accidents will still occur once the whole thing eventually does collapse. Why is the attacking side not penalised if they go to ground over the try line to score? Surely they are collapsing the maul? Is it less dangerous because there might also be defenders trying to get a hand under the ball?