Is the choke tackle a good thing?

Not so much the tackle itself but the law change that brought it about. Currently if a maul collapses legally and its not immediately playable it is a turnover. There is no obligation on defending players to roll away and make it clear as it isnt a tackle just a maul that has gone to ground. It doesnt matter if you have mauled forward 60m or lost 60m in a maul - its a turnover.

However there is a lot of confusion about it (cries of "we were moving forward ref"). It has led to more scrums certainly at lower levels where teams dont have the skill set to offload of of tackles like they do at the top and is slowly doing the game rather than speeding it up. It also has meant a maul is not about trying to shove the other guy back but rather hoping they cant get the ball back at the end of it.

On the other hand the maul is such an attacking weapon (trundling along with the ball held at the back of it) that it is important to place a handicap on things.

What are your feelings on the "choke tackle" style we are seeing nowadays.

A couple of related comments, Staggy:
1. I would prefer to see the direction of the maul itself taken into account when possession is awarded
2. I wish referees would ref the maul laws properly to prevent truck and trailer - the number of times we see players at the back, only loosely bound, is maddening

If you maul 60m though Stag the ball is invariably at the back tucked under someones arm. It should be immediately playable. In this case the ref needs to rule on how the maul was stopped as it is usually illegally after a serious march forward.

I think it is fair enough to reward the defending team with the ball in this instance but i think ireland use it far too much and for every turnover we get we concede far too much ground the other times we try it.

Ah yes thats true Standulsterman, I'm just using hyperbole to stress the point.

Asbo - I would strongly agree with both of those points.

AsBo, could'nt have said it better mate. The direction the maul is heading has next to no bearing on the refs ruling at times which is something that annoys me. As for the truck and trailor, i dont even pay attention to that anymore as its common practice now and is rarely seen or penalised.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:A couple of related comments, Staggy:
1. I would prefer to see the direction of the maul itself taken into account when possession is awarded
2. I wish referees would ref the maul laws properly to prevent truck and trailer - the number of times we see players at the back, only loosely bound, is maddening

+ 1.

No problem with the choke tackle as its smart play and good appreciation of the laws. However the rules should favour the attacking side not the defending team, which I thought was the point of the changes. The team moving forward should be rewarded with the put in.

No idea why the truck and trailer was allowed back. It amounts to blocking play and is impossible to defend. It requires very little mauling technique by the attacking team as well.

I'd been in a lot of pubs with a lot of people screaming who don't know the difference between a ruck and a collapsed maul.

I like what Ireland are trying, it's innovative and kudos to Sexton for being a 10 with the defensive prowess to initiate it. He's held up a lot of bigger fellas than himself with it, and it's an advantage he definitely has over O'Gara who'd just get bumped off.

The referee has to be proactive in this case and yell maul as soon as the second players from each side join. That way it gives the attacking team a bit more time to react, remove the ball from the situation and possibly take advantage of the numbers committed to the choke tackle by moving it elsewhere.

I see the point in turnovers created by collapsed mauls moving forward though. But I suppose you could blame the technique of the team in possession for not having it readily available should it happen to collapse.

I like the law in this case as it is and kudos to Ireland for innovating. It's up to teams now to take advantage of Ireland looking to do that and turn it into a weakness. Any thoughts on how to do this guys?

The turnover is awarded because the team that takes the ball into the maul have essentially made the ball unplayable by doing so. But the innovation in the choke tackle is that the maul is created by the defending team, not the attacking team.

So surely the only logical way to redress the balance is to take into account what direction the maul is going when the ball is killed (like a ruck).

I like that Ireland use it, but it’s just a loophole that we’re exploiting at the moment, if it becomes commonplace in other teams I could see the rules being tweaked.

Can someone explain why quite often after a choke tackle has been made, more players join but the ref don't call maul?

Wait until tomorrow when Tiny Greggie Laidlaw gets carried 40m downfield on Ferris' shoulders.

Mickado wrote:
I like that Ireland use it, but it’s just a loophole that we’re exploiting at the moment, if it becomes commonplace in other teams I could see the rules being tweaked.

I am in two minds about this, on one hand Ireland do get some turnover ball but on the other hand they do lose alot of ground doing it.

I would hazard a guess as to say that Ireland actually lose more ground attempting choke tackles and not having them come off than what they would have lost making a tackle. I do like it but i also think that its a little high risk at times and can give an opposing team some forward momentum.

As someone who has turned a few people over in my time by holding the ball carrier up, a scrum to the defending team is just reward for what you have to put up with to stay on your feet!

Teh skullduggery that goes on.....bending fingers back, grabbing, choking etc....yes, a scrum turnover is just reward if you can keep the ball up.

I don´t like the word choke. It doesn't sit well with me. I prefer the term smother tackle.

I like innovation and applaud Ireland´s tactics. The trick is for teams playing against teams playing well in certain areas to find ways to exploit other areas. i.e. Make to move the ball to a player in a static position. The Irish lads for example run up excitedly to smother tackle him and a player from the deep running on an angle comes up quickly and gets passed the ball before the said players arrive to tackle the static player. Where there´s a will there´s a relative I say. Nothing wrong with the tactic. Just need to adapt your game to counter it.

Choke tackle is a good thing in the right part of the field. Using it at home on the wife is out though.

I don't like it because the reason the ball is unplayable is because the guys on the floor don't let go (when it collapses). If the play is held up and doesn't go forward then fair enough.

As for offside with mauls, what about rucks? You have several players, often only from one side, standing in front of the ball, blocking the opposition from the ball. They're generally not bound properly either. Why don't people whinge and complain about this as much as the maul?

Oh and binding in the maul is generally as tight as flankers binding at scrums.

What if she asks you to do it Fly?

In answer to the question posed,yes,if you like scrums which will probably need to be reset 2/3 times before on a toss of a coin one side will be penalised.
I am a bit of a dinosaur and like see see the ball being thrown around a bit.

Holding the player up in a tackle to create a maul and to try and get a turnover is hardly new. Frank Bunce was a great exponent of this. Like any tactic there is a risk but get it right the the reward is your feed. Don't know why it's called a choke tackle as there is no choking involved (is there?)

nganboy wrote:Holding the player up in a tackle to create a maul and to try and get a turnover is hardly new. Frank Bunce was a great exponent of this. Like any tactic there is a risk but get it right the the reward is your feed. Don't know why it's called a choke tackle as there is no choking involved (is there?)

The way the Irish do it..........em, yes, there could be a little choking involved....but all done in the Best possible taste.

its pretty bad if a player is trying to goto ground but is held up by and arm round his throat.

its dangerous and effectively keeping the ball mobile by starving someone of oxygen.

should be banned and treated like a high tackle.

Hold a player up by all means smother/gang tackle... but not this