The choke tackle - time to close this 'loophole'

Almaviva

First, the choke tackle is legal, it takes skill and is difficult to execute well, and kudos to coaches and players for innovation in rugby tactics.

But.

Is the choke tackle an unforseen side effect of an effort to speed up the game and promote continuity of play rather than stop starts? It is a fundamentally negative tactic, intended to stop the opposition playing the ball, and win it through the whistle and restart, rather than truly getting your hands on the ball through playing it.

So, should this loophole be closed by the rule makers in order to reward positive play, and for the benefit of rugby flow, spectacle, and the spirit of the game ?

I kinda think so.

irishbucsfan

The defensive team does not choose to start the maul. The offensive team has to commit two players as well. It takes two to tango.

It'll kill itself off when offensive sides stop allowing it to happen. It's already starting.

Deano7788

How would you go about closing it? Personally I see nothing wrong with it, ball's held up so there's a maul, so the rules of the maul follow. Would you change how a maul is governed?

irishbucsfan

Actually one thing that annoys me about the choke tackle is something Jamie Heaslip does at nearly every one (although he's nowhere near the only one).

Maul is called then a defensive player comes from out of nowhere to join from the side. Then when the ball goes to ground that player intentionally falls directly on the ball to ensure it won't come out. That's not illegal (at a maul) but the fact they often clearly join at the side is illegal and refs should be watching a little more for it imo. Way too easy for sneaky back rowers to take advantage of it tbh

its_phil

Almaviva wrote: »

First, the choke tackle is legal, it takes skill and is difficult to execute well, and kudos to coaches and players for innovation in rugby tactics.

But.

Is the choke tackle an unforseen side effect of an effort to speed up the game and promote continuity of play rather than stop starts? It is a fundamentally negative tactic, intended to stop the opposition playing the ball, and win it through the whistle and restart, rather than truly getting your hands on the ball through playing it.

So, should this loophole be closed by the rule makers in order to reward positive play, and for the benefit of rugby flow, spectacle, and the spirit of the game ?

I kinda think so.

You may as well get rid of scrums and mauls altogether then. Why should you get a chance to retain the ball if you bring it into contact and can't return it.

Neil3030

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The defensive team does not choose to start the maul. The offensive team has to commit two players as well. It takes two to tango.

It'll kill itself off when offensive sides stop allowing it to happen. It's already starting.

So say the ball is held up, no way for the carrier to hand off and 2+ defenders commit. If the attack don't also commit, does this not risk the ball carrier being pushed backwards a fair bit?

Losty Dublin

Neil3030 wrote: »

So say the ball is held up, no way for the carrier to hand off and 2+ defenders commit. If the attack don't also commit, does this not risk the ball carrier being pushed backwards a fair bit?

In that case, the team in possession can commit numbers and try to move a maul towards the try line and it's perfectly fine, play on.

Neil3030

Losty Dublin wrote: »

In that case, the team in possession can commit numbers and try to move a maul towards the try line and it's perfectly fine, play on.

But this rules out not commiting numbers as a strategy to combat the choke?

Losty Dublin

Neil3030 wrote: »

But this rules out not commiting numbers as a strategy to combat the choke?

Choke or no choke, it's in your interest to commit some players into a maul if you went in in possession of the ball as no forward ground made will result in a rip or a scrum against.

irishbucsfan

If you start moving the player up field it gets much harder to complete the choke tackle. So I wouldn't be too worried about that.

Tox56

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If you start moving the player up field it gets much harder to complete the choke tackle. So I wouldn't be too worried about that.

Makes it harder but you still see teams succeed. Several times this season you see a player held up, his teammates drive him forward 5-6 metres, the commentators praise the drive.. and the defending team is awarded the scrum. Hard to combat really

pappyodaniel

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Actually one thing that annoys me about the choke tackle is something Jamie Heaslip does at nearly every one (although he's nowhere near the only one).

Maul is called then a defensive player comes from out of nowhere to join from the side. Then when the ball goes to ground that player intentionally falls directly on the ball to ensure it won't come out. That's not illegal (at a maul) but the fact they often clearly join at the side is illegal and refs should be watching a little more for it imo. Way too easy for sneaky back rowers to take advantage of it tbh

Tommy O'Donnell against Racing springs to mind. Munster do the donkey work, hold the player up for a few seconds then fall down on the Racing side still holding the ball and making no effort to release or roll away.

It is a part of the game that gets to me. It's great from the point of view that it's mainly an Irish tactic (esp. Munster) but I grew up playing the game where in an occasion where the ball is unplayable in a maul, the side going forward got the put in to the scrum. Now it's the attacking team getting punished 100% of the time.

Lyaiera

Almaviva wrote: »

Is the choke tackle an unforseen side effect of an effort to speed up the game and promote continuity of play rather than stop starts?

No, it's not an "unforseen side effect" at all. I don't know why but the media for some reason have forgotten over a hundred years of rugby history and seem to think Ireland invented the choke tackle against the Aussies during the RWC. The choke tackle has been around for as long as I can remember.

Almaviva

Lyaiera wrote: »

No, it's not an "unforseen side effect" at all. I don't know why but the media for some reason have forgotten over a hundred years of rugby history and seem to think Ireland invented the choke tackle against the Aussies during the RWC. The choke tackle has been around for as long as I can remember.

But was the original maul for those hundred years not 'won' by the team achieveing forward motion before the whistle rather than the offensive team as it is today? This made the maul a driving contest as a sort of ad hoc scrum. Different from the aim of the choke tackle which is to stall the play and wait for the whistle.

irishbucsfan

Tox56 wrote: »

Makes it harder but you still see teams succeed. Several times this season you see a player held up, his teammates drive him forward 5-6 metres, the commentators praise the drive.. and the defending team is awarded the scrum. Hard to combat really

No, that's not quite what I'm saying, I'm talking about what's now called "zeroing" the attempted choke tackle by not committing numbers preventing it from being called a maul.

He raised the good point that in this case it's easy for the defending team to then drive the player upfield and the attacking team could lose a lot of yards.

This is a real concern of that approach to negating the choke tackle but in practice most choke tackles are only possible when you hold the guy up in place, if you start moving him it becomes much easier to go to ground. It hasn't been a problem for teams I'm on anyway, choke tackles aren't really a concern for is any more. Might not be possible at more professional levels.

Clareman

Almaviva wrote: »

First, the choke tackle is legal, it takes skill and is difficult to execute well, and kudos to coaches and players for innovation in rugby tactics.

But.

Is the choke tackle an unforseen side effect of an effort to speed up the game and promote continuity of play rather than stop starts? It is a fundamentally negative tactic, intended to stop the opposition playing the ball, and win it through the whistle and restart, rather than truly getting your hands on the ball through playing it.

So, should this loophole be closed by the rule makers in order to reward positive play, and for the benefit of rugby flow, spectacle, and the spirit of the game ?

I kinda think so.

We should look to limit the amount of time teams get with the ball as well, some teams just hold onto it for ages, maybe limit it to 6 phases until the other team get ago with the ball.
While we're at it, lineouts are slow as well, might as well just let the put in team throw it to 1 of theirs, no contest, really speed it up.
Scrums could just be the front 5 getting together and the team with the put in retain possession.
There doesn't seem to be enough space on the pitch either, it'd be very expensive to make pitches bigger, might as well get rid of a couple of players from each team, that'll free up space.

connemara man

You might aswell say teams shouldnt counter ruck for the ball, the choke tackle that leads into a maul is there to initially slow down posession and if possible put the ball carrier in a position where the ball is unplayable to the attacking team, if the ball is playable theres no problem really

Lyaiera

Almaviva wrote: »

But was the original maul for those hundred years not 'won' by the team achieveing forward motion before the whistle rather than the offensive team as it is today? This made the maul a driving contest as a sort of ad hoc scrum. Different from the aim of the choke tackle which is to stall the play and wait for the whistle.

It was always use it or lose it.

jacothelad

Almaviva wrote: »

First, the choke tackle is legal, it takes skill and is difficult to execute well, and kudos to coaches and players for innovation in rugby tactics.

But.

Is the choke tackle an unforseen side effect of an effort to speed up the game and promote continuity of play rather than stop starts? It is a fundamentally negative tactic, intended to stop the opposition playing the ball, and win it through the whistle and restart, rather than truly getting your hands on the ball through playing it.

So, should this loophole be closed by the rule makers in order to reward positive play, and for the benefit of rugby flow, spectacle, and the spirit of the game ?

I kinda think so.

So why tackle at all? If stopping your opponents is negative, why bother?

Lyaiera wrote: »

It was always use it or lose it.

No, it wasn't. The side going forward were awarded the put in at a scrum they were awarded when the maul became stationary.

Almaviva

jacothelad wrote: »

So why tackle at all? If stopping your opponents is negative, why bother?

Of course tackle.
But that used to mean taking the player to the ground forcing him to release the ball, and allowing your team to pick it up or ruck for it. The aim of the choke tackle doesnt seem to be to maul it (as traditionally understood - driving the opposition down the pitch), but exploiting a rule intended to force teh attacking team to maul or play the ball keeping the play alive, but halting the attacker, and preventing him from playing it to thereby get the scrum put-in.

jacothelad wrote: »

No, it wasn't. The side going forward were awarded the put in at a scrum they were awarded when the maul became stationary.

Ta.

19543261

Almaviva wrote: »

Of course tackle.
But that used to mean taking the player to the ground forcing him to release the ball, and allowing your team to pick it up or ruck for it. The aim of the choke tackle doesnt seem to be to maul it (as traditionally understood - driving the opposition down the pitch), but exploiting a rule intended to force teh attacking team to maul or play the ball keeping the play alive, but halting the attacker, and preventing him from playing it to thereby get the scrum put-in.

Would it not be it more accurate to view it as a facet of play that developed from the rules? I cant imagine an exploitation being allowed become an accepted play in the game.

jacothelad wrote: »

The side going forward were awarded the put in at a scrum they were awarded when the maul became stationary.

Why/when did it change?

Losty Dublin

19543261 wrote: »

Why/when did it change?

It changed in the mid 90's to try and counter both the rolling maul and teams who created stationary mauls to kill game.

Neil3030

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, that's not quite what I'm saying, I'm talking about what's now called "zeroing" the attempted choke tackle by not committing numbers preventing it from being called a maul.

He raised the good point that in this case it's easy for the defending team to then drive the player upfield and the attacking team could lose a lot of yards.

This is a real concern of that approach to negating the choke tackle but in practice most choke tackles are only possible when you hold the guy up in place, if you start moving him it becomes much easier to go to ground. It hasn't been a problem for teams I'm on anyway, choke tackles aren't really a concern for is any more. Might not be possible at more professional levels.

So say I hold a guy up and in the process spin him around 180 degress, can another of my team then try hold him up from behind? It's still a tackle, as far as I can see, so no issue with binding. So you've made a sandwich, essentially. This way (assuming the team in attack remain "zeroing"), you might be able to move the guy down the field more easily, having one player in front and one behind, the situation seems more balanced. Then the attacking team can bind for a maul (whereupon you get the choke) or watch their teammate sail away downstream.

You could even have a pair of defenders coordinate the tackle in such a way that their combined efforts work in the same circular direction to create this sandwich, one guy latches on and tries to spin (say, counterclockwise) while the other reaches forward and simultaneously pulls the attacker around and forward. Obviously this would only work if you have a decent asymmetry in strength between the attacker and the defenders.

Tim Robbins

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Actually one thing that annoys me about the choke tackle is something Jamie Heaslip does at nearly every one (although he's nowhere near the only one).

Maul is called then a defensive player comes from out of nowhere to join from the side. Then when the ball goes to ground that player intentionally falls directly on the ball to ensure it won't come out. That's not illegal (at a maul) but the fact they often clearly join at the side is illegal and refs should be watching a little more for it imo. Way too easy for sneaky back rowers to take advantage of it tbh

A few years back you used to see refs ping that for not rolling away - now the interpretation is going with the defensive side.