Choke Tackles - Do you think they add to the spectacle of the game?

[goodNumber10]

Someone explain to me please. If a maul forms following a lineout say, and then the maul collapses but isn't pulled down illegally, then a ruck is allowed to be formed and play continues. But if a choke tackle occurs, and the maul is called and then the ruck collapses to the floor, even if it isn't pulled down illegally, it is considered turnover ball. Why is this?

Same rules for both, if the ball is playable then the ruck is allowed if not then just like the choke the lineout maul is turned over.

 

[ncurd]

Someone explain to me please. If a maul forms following a lineout say, and then the maul collapses but isn't pulled down illegally, then a ruck is allowed to be formed and play continues. But if a choke tackle occurs, and the maul is called and then the ruck collapses to the floor, even if it isn't pulled down illegally, it is considered turnover ball. Why is this?

Usually when formed from a line out the resulting ruck the ball can be obtained by one side.

When formed from a choke tackle the ball is rarely obtained by either side and it's almost impossible to ascertain who had possession so the resulting scrum is given to the team who didn't bring the ball into the maul.

At least that's my understanding of what happens, remember the scrum is suppose to be pushing/hooking contest to reset the game. Not the penalty grabbing, collapse/stand up, non straight put in monstrosity it is.

 

[j'nuh]

Usually when formed from a line out the resulting ruck the ball can be obtained by one side.

When formed from a choke tackle the ball is rarely obtained by either side and it's almost impossible to ascertain who had possession so the resulting scrum is given to the team who didn't bring the ball into the maul.

At least that's my understanding of what happens, remember the scrum is suppose to be pushing/hooking contest to reset the game. Not the penalty grabbing, collapse/stand up, non straight put in monstrosity it is.

Oh I see, so when a maul collapses, since it is the player with the ball at the base of the maul the one that collapses into a ruck, the ball is playable and therefore play continues. But if the ball is in the centre of the maul when it collapses, then it isn't playable.

That being the case, it does feel as if the choke tackle is using a loophole to do something that isn't in the spirit of the game. The game has changed in a small way because teams have realised that this can be done easily. If you're into playing the game traditionally, then I think it would make sense to change the rules of the game to stop this happening. That said, I do like watching a choke tackle. I find it fairly entertaining tbh.

 

[dullonien]

Someone explain to me please. If a maul forms following a lineout say, and then the maul collapses but isn't pulled down illegally, then a ruck is allowed to be formed and play continues. But if a choke tackle occurs, and the maul is called and then the ruck collapses to the floor, even if it isn't pulled down illegally, it is considered turnover ball. Why is this?

As other have said, the same rules apply to both. The key difference is that from a lineout it's the team with possession that instigated the maul, so they quickly get the ball to the back before it get's tied in by the defending team. With a choke tackle, it's the defending team who instigate it, and the player with the ball often can't get the ball to a team mate, because one or more defending players already have arms on the ball. A maul can turn into a ruck if the ball reaches the ground, at which point all players must release the ball. Since the ball is usually at the back from a lineout maul, the attacking side can easily place the ball back, and play continues; however since the ball is usually under a pile of bodies when a choke tackle maul collapses, it's deemed unplayable, and the ball is turned over.

Personally I hate choke tackles. They are a 100% negative tactic, and not what rugby is really about. I understand that it takes skill and strength to pull off, but I'd much prefer a more open game. If they changed the rules slightly, so that the team going forwards re-gains possession from a collapsed maul, it wouldn't remove them entirely, but wouldn't make them as alluring to defending sides.

I think I've said previously in the Wales v England thread, part of my dislike for choke tackles is probably because we are pretty poor at them, both Wales and the regions....

 

[profitius]

Edwards making no sense. The chop tackle is far more dangerous.

Its just the usual mind games from Gatland/Edwards. They've Ireland coming up in less than 2 weeks so it would have been too obvious to raise this issue next week.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

One further aspect of the rule that I think people get confused with is 'legally collapsing a maul' - there's no such thing (refs back me up!). If you hold a guy up and the referee calls 'Maul' you still can't legally bring it to ground without being penalised - you have to keep holding him up, either wait until the referee calls for the resulting scrum, or wait for the opposition to bring you to ground and, when they do, make bloody well sure they can't get the ball out!

And on that note I think its worth adding that this is the bit most people object to - its the lying all over the ball to make sure it doesn't come out which just seems incongruous. Maybe rules-wise there's a potential compromise to be found - if you can hold the player up for a set amount of time, fair beans, turnover, but if the opposition get you to ground quickly, you shouldn't be able to lie all over it.

 

[ncurd]

Its just the usual mind games from Gatland/Edwards. They've Ireland coming up in less than 2 weeks so it would have been too obvious to raise this issue next week.

Well yeah they struggled against England with it god knows what they'll against players well drilled in performing it.

On a more serious note I have no problem with the choke tackle itself, it's entertaining to watch and a real battle between the defender trying to keep the player up whilst he's trying to go to ground before the maul is called and afterwards. Also it's a legitimate way of turning over the ball that isn't about 'cheating' and should be merited as a skill. The real problem is the resulting scrum and that's covered in another thread.

---Updated---

I think the IRB brought in rules to allow collapsing of mauls mainly because England got pretty damn good at the rolling maul and tried them in experimental rules but they never really worked if I remember rightly. Around the same time kicking straight out touch in your own 22 pass back rule came in.......I think.

---Updated---

Yup glad my memory hasn't failed!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...ollapses-as-rugby-union-rejects-key-ELVs.html

 

[dasNdanger]

I had to watch this to understand what the controversy is all about...



I can see how it could lead to a high, dangerous tackle, but I'm wondering if this technique is the result of players being so damn big these days. I've seen quite a few high tackles occur when a tall player tries to tackle a little one and the arm just naturally falls near the neck and shoulders. The choke tackle (which appears to be around the chest, not neck) would be preferable to a high tackle, I would think.


das

 

[Peat]

One further aspect of the rule that I think people get confused with is 'legally collapsing a maul' - there's no such thing (refs back me up!). If you hold a guy up and the referee calls 'Maul' you still can't legally bring it to ground without being penalised - you have to keep holding him up, either wait until the referee calls for the resulting scrum, or wait for the opposition to bring you to ground and, when they do, make bloody well sure they can't get the ball out!

And on that note I think its worth adding that this is the bit most people object to - its the lying all over the ball to make sure it doesn't come out which just seems incongruous. Maybe rules-wise there's a potential compromise to be found - if you can hold the player up for a set amount of time, fair beans, turnover, but if the opposition get you to ground quickly, you shouldn't be able to lie all over it.

Already the case and already enforced providing they can get the ball carrier to earth and form a ruck. You will see players penalised because that's happened and they couldn't get out of the way quick enough.

I would note that, if you changed the rules of the maul to say the attacking team gets the put-in to the scrum if it stops moving, there is all of a sudden no incentive for the ball to ever leave the maul for teams with strong packs, and added incentive to create mauls in open play where ever possible. Create maul, drive forwards as far as possible, collapse and get the scrum once you're done, win a penalty there, kick to the corner, maul over the line, rinse and repeat VICTORY. Taking the ball into the a maul has to carry a risk for the attacking team.

 

[goodNumber10]

I had to watch this to understand what the controversy is all about...



I can see how it could lead to a high, dangerous tackle, but I'm wondering if this technique is the result of players being so damn big these days. I've seen quite a few high tackles occur when a tall player tries to tackle a little one and the arm just naturally falls near the neck and shoulders. The choke tackle (which appears to be around the chest, not neck) would be preferable to a high tackle, I would think.


das

i love Healey face when Kay puts the shoulder on the ball on the first contact... he's completely shocked.

 

[dasNdanger]

i love Healey face when Kay puts the shoulder on the ball on the first contact... he's completely shocked.

Healey's expressions are hilarious! And I did watch the video with the sound off (as was suggested at the end), and it's even better, especially the bit at 4:15.


das

 

[Thingimubob]

I'm not the biggest fan of it. More the the fact that the tacklers don't have to move after it goes to ground than anything. Feel that it (not all the time) gives defenders a free licence to kill the ball.

Also I kind of understand what Edwards means by it can be dangerous - you do see players grabbing hold of ball carriers necks. That aspect needs to be clamped down on IMO.

 

[ncurd]

you do see players grabbing hold of ball carriers necks. That aspect needs to be clamped down on IMO.

Isn't that already clarified under dangerous tackling, which say even if you start below the shoulders you can't tackle above?

Just think ref's need to enforce it more.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I'm not the biggest fan of it. More the the fact that the tacklers don't have to move after it goes to ground than anything. Feel that it (not all the time) gives defenders a free licence to kill the ball.

Yeah I think this is the main problem with choke tackles. In a ruck referees expect you to have demonstrated a reasonable attempt to get out the way - so just "happening" to land the wrong side and staying there is not cut too much slack. I'd like to see similar interpretations applied to choke tackles.

 

[ncurd]

As discussed earlier your not allowed to bring down a maul so the players are not 'tacklers' in the strictest sense....considering the heap it end up in how do you determine which team had 'possession' so therefore must roll away?

As a side note ref's ping you even if you had zero chance of rolling away or get pinned in before you had a chance. Not sure that's entirely fair....well for it to be a penalty anyway.

 

[Every Time Ref]

If you are the defensive side and end up behind the ball carrier (ie, between him and his own tryline), is there not an argument that you're offside anyway?

 

[goodNumber10]

If you are the defensive side and end up behind the ball carrier (ie, between him and his own tryline), is there not an argument that you're offside anyway?

not if you join from the right side and remain bound.

- - - Updated - - -

As discussed earlier your not allowed to bring down a maul so the players are not 'tacklers' in the strictest sense....considering the heap it end up in how do you determine which team had 'possession' so therefore must roll away?

As a side note ref's ping you even if you had zero chance of rolling away or get pinned in before you had a chance. Not sure that's entirely fair....well for it to be a penalty anyway.

I thin the theory is that you know where you are putting yourself so as such you are responsible for making sure your technique doesn't get you trapped on the wrong side. It's tough, when you see incidents like Haskell trying to get out and being pinned in with someones knee....

 

[Every Time Ref]

not if you join from the right side and remain bound.

OK fair enough, I was wrong about that.

- - - Updated - - -



I thin the theory is that you know where you are putting yourself so as such you are responsible for making sure your technique doesn't get you trapped on the wrong side. It's tough, when you see incidents like Haskell trying to get out and being pinned in with someones knee....

Yeah I get that it's far from simple to interpret, but you do see players working their way round to the back (perfectly legally) then essentially taking the weight off their feet and just hanging on to the ball carrier, waiting for it all to collapse on top of them. That should be considered a clear penalty in my view.

 

[ncurd]

I thin the theory is that you know where you are putting yourself so as such you are responsible for making sure your technique doesn't get you trapped on the wrong side. It's tough, when you see incidents like Haskell trying to get out and being pinned in with someones knee....

I know the theory just not sure it works in practice. I'd personally change the law that if player is unable to or not given the opportunity to roll away by the opposing side and been made unable to roll away that a free kick is given instead. I'd also stop referee's telling the player to roll away most of the time is futile and just giving the player the opportunity to slow down the ball.

However there are a couple of problems mainly tackling technique when scrum is in ascendency will mean players will deliberately fall the wrong side and hope to get 'stuck'. However it will stop the attacking team playing for penalties as they'll wait for him to get out, but again counter rucking could become a problem then.....all pretty complex but I'm dissatisfied every time a player is unable to roll away through no fault of their own (except aforementioned technique).


EveryTimeRef, isn't that deliberately collapsing the maul? After all your putting your weight into bringing another player down.....ref have hard time and there's probably 3-4 other things they are looking for during maul time meaning it isn't spotted.

 

[lynam1104]

I think Peats hit the nail on the head here, both ways the choke tackle will be viewed negatively but the scenario that Peat outlined sounds absolutely dross and further places the emphasis on as Ewis would've said MASS. I like the choke tackle I think it adds variety to defensive play and its a big win for when a team pulls it off. Some people suggest that its negative low risk play but IMO unless you win the turnover you are at risk of seriously exposing yourself out wide.

Theres a broader point about rugby here that I think will be more lastingly relevant, rugby is constantly adapting and changing at a rate that IMO is faster than any other sport out there. IRB/WR/Magical branding team have very responsive to incidents and tactics, the real question is wether this is a good thing. But the main things is no matter how responsive the IRB is coaches have the job of coming up with new tactics to win games. I imagine Kiss spent hours pouring over game footage and into the law books before spending hours drilling the choke tackle into the Irish players- its his job to win his team games and so if something changes another coach will find the new loophole the cycle repeats.

Thus the big question is do we want the game to endless reshape itself or should it remain steadfast? I'm not certain however I do lean towards the former.