Rolling maul nothing short of obstruction on the move

Chris Pollock overruled a Sharks try from a rolling maul. Photo / Getty Images

Just a hint of obstruction in a backline move draws a penalty for obstruction.

Defenders throw their arms to the sky and plead for the referee's assistance as soon as a simple cut move goes off-key or opponents run behind a wall of teammates.

The glossary of terms has changed to "crossing" but the verdict is invariably as it has been down the rugby ages. Obstruction: penalty to the defending team.

So why in the name of all that is good in the sport are rolling mauls acceptable?

They are high-level, deliberately planned blockades, obstruction which has been drilled from whiteboard and video analysis to practice on the training field.

Usually from a lineout, players are taught to smuggle the ball to the back of the rolling maul and then drive while the opposition battles in their attempts to stop the sanctioned move.

Sometimes defenders find a schism and, in the new vernacular, "swim" as Dominic Bird did on Friday for the Crusaders, through the maul to wrap up the ball-carrier at the back of the maul.

When he repeated that move he was sent to the sin-bin. Go figure.

When David Pocock scored three recent tries he had illegal help from Brumbies teammates who joined the maul ahead of their ball-carrying loose-forward. Go figure.

When the Sharks converted a rolling maul expertly against the Hurricanes on Saturday only referee Chris Pollock and the TMO seemed to have any doubt and overruled the touchdown to the confusion of the commentators and most watching. Go figure.

Match officials and the TMO should not have to make any judgments on rolling mauls.

By nature they are obstruction and therefore illegal and should be outlawed in the rules. In that way, more pedantic confusion will be eradicated from the game.

However, while World Rugby has kicked off a glacial review into the laws, they appear to have no stomach to unpick or investigate the merits of mauls. Discussions are going on with a number of agreed points, including ideas about that part of the game.

Mauls are a unique part of rugby which must be maintained, according to WR, even though in another paragraph they declare that laws must allow for a fair contest of possession, especially in the contact area.

Since when does a ball hidden at the back of a maul with seven players forming an obstructive wedge ahead of the ball-carrier constitute a fair contest for possession?

WR also says rugby should "be as easy to understand as possible" for those involved and those who watch.

There are many head-scratching areas in rugby from the scrum to the breakdown which demand difficult referee decisions and provoke furrowed reactions from onlookers.

The rolling maul, on the other hand, should be so easy. It is obstruction, plain and simple. Job done WR, next point.