The "Choke" Tackle

I'm currently watching the Ospreys Treviso game, and I've been reminded of something I've been meaning to bring up here for a while. I don't understand how the choke tackle, whereby a player is held up in the collision, other players join in for it to become a maul, then the ball goes to ground, is seemingly held to different rules than a normal maul.

So often it seems the tackling team is pulling down the tackle, or maul, and yet I've never seen it given as apenalty against the defending side; the ref is far too intent on blowing up for the ball not coming straight out and giving turnover ball (another point is they blow instantly, with no idea how close the ball is to being played or available).

This seems to be an issue primarily at the top level of the game, although its a messy move, you mostly see then executed effectively by the best defensive sides, so I would have thought such a standard would require equally adequate refereeing.

If the ball carrier is held up then he has the ball, and in turn the defender has the ball carrier, allowing the ball carrier to be dropped.

At other mauls the ball gets shipped to the back man and therefore cannot be dropped until a defender has worked his way through to the ball carrier

The defending team will not willfully bring down the maul if there is a choke tackle, it's in their interests that the ball goes dead and dropping the maul surely increases the likelihood that the team in possession can recycle the ball.

Yah.

The team wanting to 'collapse' the maul are the ones in possession of the ball. he idea of the choke is to keep them standing and stopping the ball from getting free. I suppose you can't penalise the team with the ball for collapsing the mall because they're in posession.

gcBlues wrote:Yah.

The team wanting to 'collapse' the maul are the ones in possession of the ball. he idea of the choke is to keep them standing and stopping the ball from getting free. I suppose you can't penalise the team with the ball for collapsing the mall because they're in posession.

So if the ball carrier gets held up int he choke tackle and then his pack start to drive forwards, with the defensive side obviously going backwards and unable to get the ball free fromt eh ball carrier is that then collapsing the maul as the defending side would be wanting to find ground, and the attacking side woud be wanting to keep it up and rumble on.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

gcBlues wrote:Yah.

The team wanting to 'collapse' the maul are the ones in possession of the ball. he idea of the choke is to keep them standing and stopping the ball from getting free. I suppose you can't penalise the team with the ball for collapsing the mall because they're in posession.

So if the ball carrier gets held up int he choke tackle and then his pack start to drive forwards, with the defensive side obviously going backwards and unable to get the ball free fromt eh ball carrier is that then collapsing the maul as the defending side would be wanting to find ground, and the attacking side woud be wanting to keep it up and rumble on.

But the onus on the team who carried the ball into possession is not to go forward, moving forward in a maul when the ball goes dead is of no use to anyone, other than to concede marginally less territory for the scrum. The attacking team need to get the ball out of the maul, so pushing it forward isn't much use to them.

I see what you mean though, if the attacking team does move forward and the defending team does pull down the maul there should be a penalty to the attacking team, but I think ref's are concentrating on only two outcomes when a choke tackle is instigated, if the ball goes dead it's a defensive scrum, if the ball comes out it's play on.

Mick - yeah I think once it is a choke tackle, your right the ref only cares about is if the ball is played or not. Just one of those that got me wondering about technicalities of it all.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Mick - yeah I think once it is a choke tackle, your right the ref only cares about is if the ball is played or not.  Just one of those that got me wondering about technicalities of it all.

Ah the divil is in the detail SS

An interesting point.  With a standard maul, you can't collapse it.  But the reason for the penalty is that you are pulling down a fella who does not have possession of the ball to impeed their progress.  If you take a lineout situation and the lock catches the ball and comes to ground with the rest of the pack forming a maul, the defender could (if the lock still has possession) just take the lock to ground straight away.  The penalty is not for purely taking down a maul, it is for taking down players not in possession isn't it?

If you are in a maul though, and make it to the guy in possession, then you can take him to ground (as you're tackling the person in possession), can't you?

So the choke tackle would be the equivalent  of the latter.  Except you have forced the formation of the maul by choking the supply of ball out of the tackle.

I can't understand why players don't hand the ball backwards to their teammates when they feel themselves starting to be held up. It was one of the first things I learned after the basic passing/ tackling skills. I understand that it isn't always possible, but I have seen players held up and pointlessly drive on so many times.

Cumbrian wrote:I can't understand why players don't hand the ball backwards to their teammates when they feel themselves starting to be held up.  It was one of the first things I learned after the basic passing/ tackling skills.   I understand that it isn't always possible,  but  I have seen players held up and pointlessly drive on so many times.  

Most of the time when Ireland or Leinster try the choke tackle (I watch them more than other teams but assume this is the general technique) one player tackles the ball carrier around the chest and holds their arms so that they can't pass the ball back, the other tacklers then concentrate on keeping him from going to ground.

Saracens appear to be developing the technique with Ashton primarily using his old RL cobra 'tackle' and the rest holding it up. Not pretty - but it's a legal skill.

I think as has been said you can take out the player with the ball in a maul. You see it sometimes at a lineout where the catch is taken out with the ball and it becomes a ruck.

Usually on the choke tackle the defending tackler also seems to be on front of the player while the second is behind thus stopping the ball. I dont know why the second player doesn't try rip the ball away. I have seen ireland do the choke with three players trying to hold it up then to just take the ball.

Brendan wrote:I think as has been said you can take out the player with the ball in a maul.  You see it sometimes at a lineout where the catch is taken out with the ball and it becomes a ruck.

Usually on the choke tackle the defending tackler also seems to be on front of the player while the second is behind thus stopping the ball.  I dont know why the second player doesn't try rip the ball away.  I have seen ireland do the choke with three players trying to hold it up then to just take the ball.

A scrum is cleaner possession though. Also if you've any kind of advantage in the scrum then it allows you to press it. With the new scrum laws I can see far less penalties given at scrum time, so maybe the choke tackle won't be used as much from now on.

Mickado wrote:

Brendan wrote:I think as has been said you can take out the player with the ball in a maul.  You see it sometimes at a lineout where the catch is taken out with the ball and it becomes a ruck.

Usually on the choke tackle the defending tackler also seems to be on front of the player while the second is behind thus stopping the ball.  I dont know why the second player doesn't try rip the ball away.  I have seen ireland do the choke with three players trying to hold it up then to just take the ball.

A scrum is cleaner possession though. Also if you've any kind of advantage in the scrum then it allows you to press it. With the new scrum laws I can see far less penalties given at scrum time, so maybe the choke tackle won't be used as much from now on.

With ireland i hate when we do the choke and get a scrum and then give a penalty way so the opposition are 40m up the pitch for nothing.

Mickado wrote:

Brendan wrote:I think as has been said you can take out the player with the ball in a maul.  You see it sometimes at a lineout where the catch is taken out with the ball and it becomes a ruck.

Usually on the choke tackle the defending tackler also seems to be on front of the player while the second is behind thus stopping the ball.  I dont know why the second player doesn't try rip the ball away.  I have seen ireland do the choke with three players trying to hold it up then to just take the ball.

A scrum is cleaner possession though. Also if you've any kind of advantage in the scrum then it allows you to press it. With the new scrum laws I can see far less penalties given at scrum time, so maybe the choke tackle won't be used as much from now on.

You can never collapse a maul once the ref calls it as a maul. In the instances where the cathcer in the lineout is tackled, that is exactly what it is, a tackle. It must be instantaneous the monent his feet touch the ground a slight delay will allow lifters to bind and then it's a maul.
Even if you're a beast and legally come through a maul, you can only target the ball and not actively tackle the carrier as this would be deemed collapsing.

Submachine wrote:

Mickado wrote:

Brendan wrote:I think as has been said you can take out the player with the ball in a maul.  You see it sometimes at a lineout where the catch is taken out with the ball and it becomes a ruck.

Usually on the choke tackle the defending tackler also seems to be on front of the player while the second is behind thus stopping the ball.  I dont know why the second player doesn't try rip the ball away.  I have seen ireland do the choke with three players trying to hold it up then to just take the ball.

A scrum is cleaner possession though. Also if you've any kind of advantage in the scrum then it allows you to press it. With the new scrum laws I can see far less penalties given at scrum time, so maybe the choke tackle won't be used as much from now on.

You can never collapse a maul once the ref calls it as a maul. In the instances where the cathcer in the lineout is tackled, that is exactly what it is, a tackle. It must be instantaneous the monent his feet touch the ground a slight delay will allow lifters to bind and then it's a maul.
Even if you're a beast and legally come through a maul, you can only target the ball and not actively tackle the carrier as this would be deemed collapsing.

Thanks for the clarification Sub.  You are indeed correct.  You can't tackle the carrier to the ground, but could you drive him out of the maul (a maul ends if the ball, or the player carrying the ball leaves the maul) and then tackle him to the ground.  I've never seen it so just working on the hypothetical (spelling?)

It's a dam boring negative tactic.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:It's a dam boring negative tactic.

I disagree.  I enjoy watching a well marshalled defensive system.
What would be a positive defensive tactic? Just making tackles and never competing to regain possession?

No! turn over the ball or rip the ball All Black style and attack, catch defenses out! i find lazy teams do the choke tackle, the game gets stopped the water boys come on they get a rest then faff around for a few more minutes collapsing scrums.

This is my point, then. There does seem to be two different standards by which a maul formed from a lineout and maul from a choke tackle are refereed. I think most obvious is, once the maul has gone to ground, the ref will instantly call a turnover during a choke tackle, but is far more lenient in allowing time for the ball to be worked out of a collapsed maul in any other situation. I also don't believe the collapse of a choke tackle would be performed by the team in possession unless they were moving forward quickly and had enough numbers in the maul to be able to drive space for the ball to be moved back as the players hit the ground and their binds are broken. Another issue is that, although the gate is relatively small in a choke tackle, it being between 3-4 players at the start rather than two packs, there seems to be no issue of where players enter through. It's an absolute free for all, and another issue with referees blowing too early is that they have no idea where the ball is, it could well be on the floor and therefore no longer a maul, but players are seemingly allowed to go off their feet and challenge for the ball/flop on the pile of players and obstruct the ball coming out.

butterfingers wrote:If the ball carrier is held up then he has the ball, and in turn the defender has the ball carrier, allowing the ball carrier to be dropped.

This is definitely not what I was taught!? Whilst that's fine when it's merely a group tackle, once a maul is called that is no longer an option. Only the team with the ball can take it to ground.

Law 17.2(e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

miaow wrote:This is my point, then. There does seem to be two different standards by which a maul formed from a lineout and maul from a choke tackle are refereed. I think most obvious is, once the maul has gone to ground, the ref will instantly call a turnover during a choke tackle, but is far more lenient in allowing time for the ball to be worked out of a collapsed maul in any other situation. I also don't believe the collapse of a choke tackle would be performed by the team in possession unless they were moving forward quickly and had enough numbers in the maul to be able to drive space for the ball to be moved back as the players hit the ground and their binds are broken. Another issue is that, although the gate is relatively small in a choke tackle, it being between 3-4 players at the start rather than two packs, there seems to be no issue of where players enter through. It's an absolute free for all, and another issue with referees blowing too early is that they have no idea where the ball is, it could well be on the floor and therefore no longer a maul, but players are seemingly allowed to go off their feet and challenge for the ball/flop on the pile of players and obstruct the ball coming out.

butterfingers wrote:If the ball carrier is held up then he has the ball, and in turn the defender has the ball carrier, allowing the ball carrier to be dropped.

This is definitely not what I was taught!? Whilst that's fine when it's merely a group tackle, once a maul is called that is no longer an option. Only the team with the ball can take it to ground.

Law 17.2(e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Yes you are completely correct, it infuriates me when the team being held up manage to drive forward but the ref still gives the ball away.

It's a bit like the scrum half tap and go getting called back because he was half a meter away from the mark, so then the scrum half hands the fly half the ball to kick for touch but the kicker runs 3 or four meters beyond the mark before the he powers away the kick and the ref doesn't batter an eye lid.