Ban the Choke Tackle - Yes or No

Shaun Edwards says the choke tackle should be banned.. Do you agree ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31593740

Feel free to add your thoughts.

Personally I agree, it adds nothing to the game and its only a matter of time before someone gets hurt through this method of tackling.

My logic:

No i don't agree. His basic grasp of what a choke tackle is, is wrong. A choke tackle is targeting the ball not tackling around players necks. What it adds to the game is a way to combat big hard running players going straight into contact.

I'd disagree with banning the tackle itself,however I wouldn't mind seeing the scrum awarded to the team going forward if the maul is held up,this would negate much of the usefulness of employing the choke tackle.

However this may have unintended consequences and make the maul too powerful a weapon,it's a tough one to get right but I can't see how you could possibly ban it.How would you word the law so that it differentiates from an ordinary tackle?

Also, how exactly do you ban it? If the defender makes a tackle and the player doesn't go to ground, is nobody allowed to assist? Do we end up with the 2 players driving at each other until they fall or the tackle is broken? Or can you just no longer target the ball in a tackle?

No, its the same as a lot of these issues at the moment if its done properly there nothing wrong with it but there have been instances where it looks dangerous and maybe another area that needs to be monitored.

No, learn to deal with it better instead.

NO, i don't think that the tackle should be banned, i do agree asoreleftshoulder that i think that a scrum should be awarded to the team going forward.

Apart from Heaslip being kneed in the back, has anybody been seriously injured from a choke tackle?

Don't ban it, but I would like refs to get a lot stricter with certain aspects.
Seen a lot of players starting the initial tackle around the neck, so lets start enforcing the dangerous tackle law again.

Also refs should be extra vigilant for the tackled player being held up by the neck.

Stewie15 wrote:Apart from Heaslip being kneed in the back, has anybody been seriously injured from a choke tackle?

Mark Bennett was held up in one against Ulster and due to the pressure on his neck passed out.

GLove39 wrote:

Stewie15 wrote:Apart from Heaslip being kneed in the back, has anybody been seriously injured from a choke tackle?

Mark Bennett was held up in one against Ulster and due to the pressure on his neck passed out.

Oh right, didn't see that. Was he tackled around the neck or did the tackle slide up when he was trying to get to ground? Or was it a tackle assist?

The only reason teams do a choke tackle is because they win a turnover if they start a maul and it collapses.

How about we go back to the old rules where if a maul is being driven forward and collapses the team going forward gets the put in at the scrum? That would stop the choke tackle without having another area of the game constantly being referred to the TMO

I'd like to see the high tackle laws changed slightly ,I think anything above the armpits should be a high tackle instead of above the shoulders,force the tackler to start lower so if he gets it wrong it shouldn't end up being as dangerous.It would also make it easier for attackers to keep their hands free and hopefully increase the chances of successful offloads.

I say keep it, but a law should be made that if ever the holding players arms go anywhere near the neck, then he MUST leave go, almost every choke tackle I see has the tackler holding the player around the neck, what that then does is stop the player with the ball going to ground and re-cycling the ball, and it is a tactic I have seen used by all the Ireland sides both province and national. There is nothing wrong with holding the player up, and choking the BALL, but when you stop a player going to ground by levering an arm under the opposition players chin, then it becomes dangerous.

First video shows what it is designed to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEwHf-eTZ4w


However it can end up too high and we get this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0



For me if you do as demonstrated by BT sport - then fine. As soon as contact is made above the armpits, whether initially or rising up, then it should be deemed a high tackle.

I concur. Choke tackle is fine except when players end up being held by their necks, then it's high and should be penalised.

"Everyone is going on about concussions and people tackling too high. Well, let's start with that."

I think Edwards is being a bit cheeky associating choke tackles with concussion when they have little in common.

The worst thing about the choke tackle is its name. In reality they arent any more dangerous than any other type of tackle.

GunsGerms wrote:"Everyone is going on about concussions and people tackling too high. Well, let's start with that."

I think Edwards is being a bit cheeky associating choke tackles with concussion when they have little in common.

The worst thing about the choke tackle is its name. In reality they arent any more dangerous than any other type of tackle.

Think he's on about clash of heads when players are in an upright position for the tackle eg Basteraud.

"It adds nothing to the game."

Yeah, when I heard that line I sniggered a little.

So what does a collapsing scrum add to a game.  Or an unchallenged line-out?  Or an unchallenged man in the air going for a ball??  "FLY!!!! Behave!"

I'll tell you what a choke tackle might bring to a game - the difference between winning it and losing it - similar to all other parts of the game, like big centres crashing through little puny defenders at car crash speed.


But Gats is getting his Irish niggle in early and deputising the duty out to Edwards

Fine. Let the mouth talk begin a week early then.

I remember the game Wales played against Ireland with the famous ball boy. Well, after that game Mike Phillips was questioned about being allowed to score a try with a different ball, and he said that you are not, but you are not supposed to do high tackles either, it left averybody scratching their heads, but when it went back up into the studio, they showed a number of clips with Ireland players having their arms around the Welsh players necks in the middle of a maul, in one incident you could see Mike Phillips shouting at the ref whilst Paul O'Connell had his arm under his chin and around his throat, there was nothing he could do as he was holding the ball and there were a ton of others players all latched onto him, it did look very dangerous.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:"Everyone is going on about concussions and people tackling too high. Well, let's start with that."

I think Edwards is being a bit cheeky associating choke tackles with concussion when they have little in common.

The worst thing about the choke tackle is its name. In reality they arent any more dangerous than any other type of tackle.

Think he's on about clash of heads when players are in an upright position for the tackle eg Basteraud.

So really he is asking for a ban on upright tackles then? If concussion is the concern then you would have to ban all upright tackles which is a bit ridiculous. Also there arent that many head clashes anyway and I doubt he is concerned about Sexton.

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:"Everyone is going on about concussions and people tackling too high. Well, let's start with that."

I think Edwards is being a bit cheeky associating choke tackles with concussion when they have little in common.

The worst thing about the choke tackle is its name. In reality they arent any more dangerous than any other type of tackle.

Think he's on about clash of heads when players are in an upright position for the tackle eg Basteraud.

So really he is asking for a ban on upright tackles then? If concussion is the concern then you would have to ban all upright tackles which is a bit ridiculous. Also there arent that many head clashes anyway and I doubt he is concerned about Sexton.

I think he's partially concerned about all player safety, partly annoyed that the current laws should stop people being held up by arms under their chin anyway and partly annoyed that Wales don't choke tackle as well as other sides.

LondonTiger wrote:First video shows what it is designed to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEwHf-eTZ4w


However it can end up too high and we get this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0



For me if you do as demonstrated by BT sport - then fine. As soon as contact is made above the armpits, whether initially or rising up, then it should be deemed a high tackle.

That's shocking. What an absolute tool of a thing to do by O'Connor. Did he get banned for this?

bluestonevedder wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:First video shows what it is designed to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEwHf-eTZ4w


However it can end up too high and we get this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0



For me if you do as demonstrated by BT sport - then fine. As soon as contact is made above the armpits, whether initially or rising up, then it should be deemed a high tackle.

That's shocking. What an absolute tool of a thing to do by O'Connor. Did he get banned for this?

I watched that clip a few times.. I don't actually think anyone realised Bennet was out cold until he was "pushed/thrown" out of the "pile up" and Owens realised and immediately went down over him and blew the whistle. Hence I don't think there was any cause for a citing, just an unfortunate accident from "legal" choke tackle.. So maybe there is grounds to ban or at least revisit this form of play.

Difficult to call this. Certainly the name given to it is misleading and it has sometimes been misinterpreted or misunderstood by posters on here.

As the BT video clip demonstrates, it is two forces in opposing action - the tackler who is trying to keep the player up, and the tackled player who is trying to move down - inevitably this is will lead in some circumstances to where the tackled player moves low enough that the tackler's arms are now around his neck area. For the choke tackle to be successful, it does NOT require the maul to collapse or go to ground.

The BT clip also makes the assumption that the player with the ball is going to go down low around the tackler's midriff as he makes contact to avoid the choke tackle - the reality is that this doesn't happen all the time and some players quite deliberately stay upright in the tackle in an attempt to power past the tackling player.

As others have observed, how would you legislate for banning this kind of tackle whereby the player with the ball is held up by someone stronger than him? If he drops lower so that the tackler's arms are now around his neck area, does he/should he win a penalty?

Pot Hale wrote:Difficult to call this.  Certainly the name given to it is misleading and it has sometimes been misinterpreted or misunderstood by posters on here.  

As the BT video clip demonstrates, it is two forces in opposing action - the tackler who is trying to keep the player up, and the tackled player who is trying to move down - inevitably this is will lead in some circumstances to where the tackled player moves low enough that the tackler's arms are now around his neck area.  For the choke tackle to be successful, it does NOT require the maul to collapse or go to ground.

The BT clip also makes the assumption that the player with the ball is going to go down low around the tackler's midriff as he makes contact to avoid the choke tackle - the reality is that this doesn't happen all the time and some players quite deliberately stay upright in the tackle in an attempt to power past the tackling player.

As others have observed, how would you legislate for banning this kind of tackle whereby the player with the ball is held up by someone stronger than him?  If he drops lower so that the tackler's arms are now around his neck area, does he/should he win a penalty?

Pot, it is misinterpreted because almost all the time the person getting "held up" is actually being choked. My answer would be, as soon as the tacklers arms go anywhere near the neck/throat/chin then they leave go. If they are not strong enough to stop the tackled player from slipping their grasp and going towards the ground to recycle the ball then thats their own fault, if they do not leave go when they are holding above the shoulders then it should be a pen, of course the ref could police this, he could shout, just as he does when he tells people to play the ball, or to leave the ball go in a ruck, he could always shout release the player when he sees the arms go high, this could be a good tactic, but it needs cleaning up.

bluestonevedder wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:First video shows what it is designed to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEwHf-eTZ4w


However it can end up too high and we get this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0



For me if you do as demonstrated by BT sport - then fine. As soon as contact is made above the armpits, whether initially or rising up, then it should be deemed a high tackle.

That's shocking. What an absolute tool of a thing to do by O'Connor. Did he get banned for this?

6 weeks, cut to 3 for good behaviour.

Pot Hale wrote:
As others have observed, how would you legislate for banning this kind of tackle whereby the player with the ball is held up by someone stronger than him?  If he drops lower so that the tackler's arms are now around his neck area, does he/should he win a penalty?

If your arms are below the arm pits, hard to slide up round the neck unless the ball carrier lifts their arms in the air. The problem is not usually the initial tackler but the "helper" who often wraps his arms over the shoulders. The laws say that is illegal already - but refs allow it to happen.

Why would you want to ban something that adds value to the game?

Biltong wrote:Why would you want to ban something that adds value to the game?

They banned streakers.

Biltong wrote:Why would you want to ban something that adds value to the game?

I do not think people want it banned Bilt, they/me want it cleaned up. It is a good tactic, it just needs to be reffed properly.

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:Why would you want to ban something that adds value to the game?

They banned streakers.

Ja, but have you seen some of them, you need to slaughter a pig after to erase those images from your mind

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:Why would you want to ban something that adds value to the game?

I do not think people want it banned Bilt, they/me want it cleaned up. It is a good tactic, it just needs to be reffed properly.

No doubt, like so many aspects of the laws surrounding rugby

Ban Ballboys - untrustworthy
Ban TMOs - getting in the way of the ref
Ban refs - getting in the way of dark arts
Ban dark arts - only suitable for mucky days with fogged up cameras
Ban mucky days - we got roof technology, let's use it
Ban technology - too many camera angles now and everyone can see what they want to see on each one
Ban armchair Refs who look at all camera angles with microscope glasses.....................................

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????

Now hold on a f**king second.  That's going way too far.

No9 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:First video shows what it is designed to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEwHf-eTZ4w


However it can end up too high and we get this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0



For me if you do as demonstrated by BT sport - then fine. As soon as contact is made above the armpits, whether initially or rising up, then it should be deemed a high tackle.

That's shocking. What an absolute tool of a thing to do by O'Connor. Did he get banned for this?

I watched that clip a few times.. I don't actually think anyone realised Bennet was out cold until he was "pushed/thrown" out of the "pile up" and Owens realised and immediately went down over him and blew the whistle. Hence I don't think there was any cause for a citing, just an unfortunate accident from "legal" choke tackle.. So maybe there is grounds to ban or at least revisit this form of play.

It wasn't a legal tackle. I think O'Connors arm slipped up from the legal position to holding the side of the neck. An unintentional sleeper hold. An accident, like many other forms of accidents that happen on the field of play.

I believe the call to ban the choke tackle is little more than mind games, although the call was from a League player. Maybe he wants the Scrum banned as well? and maybe the Maul?... perhaps the ruck. Maybe they're ok though, because Wales can deal with them

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:Why would you want to ban something that adds value to the game?

I do not think people want it banned Bilt, they/me want it cleaned up. It is a good tactic, it just needs to be reffed properly.

No doubt, like so many aspects of the laws surrounding rugby

But this is an easy one to sort out, we already have the ref shouting out instructions to players, to use it, or hands off, why cant the ref just shout to the player with the arms around the throat to release the player, or let go, I don't know, anyway from what I have seen from this over the years is that as soon as a player tackles and holds the oposition player, a team mate of the player doing the tackling will then join in putting is arms around the neck using the chin as an anchor to stop the player being able to get to the floor and recycle the ball, this is what needs looking at.

Munchkin wrote:

No9 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:First video shows what it is designed to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEwHf-eTZ4w


However it can end up too high and we get this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0



For me if you do as demonstrated by BT sport - then fine. As soon as contact is made above the armpits, whether initially or rising up, then it should be deemed a high tackle.

That's shocking. What an absolute tool of a thing to do by O'Connor. Did he get banned for this?

I watched that clip a few times.. I don't actually think anyone realised Bennet was out cold until he was "pushed/thrown" out of the "pile up" and Owens realised and immediately went down over him and blew the whistle. Hence I don't think there was any cause for a citing, just an unfortunate accident from "legal" choke tackle.. So maybe there is grounds to ban or at least revisit this form of play.

It wasn't a legal tackle. I think O'Connors arm slipped up from the legal position to holding the side of the neck. An unintentional sleeper hold. An accident, like many other forms of accidents that happen on the field of play.

I believe the call to ban the choke tackle is little more than mind games, although the call was from a League player. Maybe he wants the Scrum banned as well? and maybe the Maul?... perhaps the ruck. Maybe they're ok though, because Wales can deal with them

What I don't like was the position O'Connor had Bennett in. It reminded me of Pocock's injury when Jannie Du Plessis pulled and contorted his body over a ruck. 

Bennett's legs appeared to be under him, and O'Connor was pulling him by his neck over the ruck. Even when the whistle went he continued to hold onto Bennett's neck. It's just plain dirty, and isn't part of the game. It genuinely looks like he was just trying to inflict pain to get a 'one up' on a vulnerable player. I'd have been absolutely incensed if I was Mark Bennett. Yes, it's a physical game but players should be concerned with others' welfare too. 

Stupid, stupid thing to do.

You are reading into it things that didn't happen. If O'Connor was choking Bennett in the collapsed maul, then serious damage would have been done. O'Connor held him as any player would do, although it probably looks worse because Bennett was unconscious at that time. So, no. It wasn't plain dirty, but rather just your interpretation of what actually happened leading you to believe that, for whatever reason.

Munchkin wrote:You are reading into it things that didn't happen. If O'Connor was choking Bennett in the collapsed maul, then serious damage would have been done. O'Connor held him as any player would do, although it probably looks worse because Bennett was unconscious at that time. So, no. It wasn't plain dirty, but rather just your interpretation of what actually happened leading you to believe that, for whatever reason.

I don't understand your point Munchkin. Reading into things that didn't happen? It's all in the video. Bennett is rendered unconscious because he is held around the neck by O'Connor at the bottom of the ruck. 

You're saying it looked more serious than it was because Bennett was unconscious? But he was unconscious because O'Connor had him illegally around the neck?

Anyway, back to the OP. I agree with most posters in that I don't think the choke tackle should be banned, but it should be refereed better. As someone above said, you aim for the ball in a choke tackle. High tackle rules still apply, so anything above the shoulders is illegal.

No, high tackles are already illegal. So there is no need to change the existing rules. Merely to enforce them.

The truth is, choke tackles are only effective against upright runners crashing the ball into midfield where the defence is thickest.The fact that this is Wales' main attacking strategy is, of course, a coincidence.

For me anything that forces a team to vary their attack and use a little bit more imagination is a good thing.

bluestonevedder wrote:

Munchkin wrote:You are reading into it things that didn't happen. If O'Connor was choking Bennett in the collapsed maul, then serious damage would have been done. O'Connor held him as any player would do, although it probably looks worse because Bennett was unconscious at that time. So, no. It wasn't plain dirty, but rather just your interpretation of what actually happened leading you to believe that, for whatever reason.

I don't understand your point Munchkin. Reading into things that didn't happen? It's all in the video. Bennett is rendered unconscious because he is held around the neck by O'Connor at the bottom of the ruck. 

You're saying it looked more serious than it was because Bennett was unconscious? But he was unconscious because O'Connor had him illegally around the neck?

Anyway, back to the OP. I agree with most posters in that I don't think the choke tackle should be banned, but it should be refereed better. As someone above said, you aim for the ball in a choke tackle. High tackle rules still apply, so anything above the shoulders is illegal.

Because you were commenting on O'Connor holding him in the collapsed maul, not when Bennett was rendered unconscious during the choke tackle which was illegal, due to his arm slipping up, but the consequences were accidental. Yes, I know all about the video. I have watched it about 2 dozen times now, and have no wish to subject myself to watching it again!

Agree, it shouldn't be banned, but reffed better. I would also say the same about the ruck. Some players holding heads in an arm-lock before pulling them over the top of the ruck. Much more dangerous in my view.

Munchkin wrote:Agree, it shouldn't be banned, but reffed better. I would also say the same about the ruck. Some players holding heads in an arm-lock before pulling them over the top of the ruck. Much more dangerous in my view.

Any type of tackling that involves your arms around the neck should be stopped.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Agree, it shouldn't be banned, but reffed better. I would also say the same about the ruck. Some players holding heads in an arm-lock before pulling them over the top of the ruck. Much more dangerous in my view.

Any type of tackling that involves your arms around the neck should be stopped.

Fair point, LD. I absolutely agree. It's just that I have noticed players pulling opponents out of the ruck by the head a lot more recently, and the ref's not seeming to care. I hope that changes soon.

I think you are all wrong... It should be BANNED.. and banned BEFORE the 2015 RWC.

shhhh!!!:

It's only a maul where the ref believes the ball will not come out. There is no time limit but the ref has discretion as to how long he lets it go on. Choke tackle is just an emotive phrase that is not mentioned in the law book. What these silly people are saying is should we ban the maul? NO is the answer.

We don't use the phrase choke tackle and I don't know why you do. We call it held up in the tackle (or something like that). Around the neck is high and its illegal so ref that. I sort of remember Frank Bunce being a very good exponent this. He did it by attacking the ball. If I remember right.

Munchkin wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

Munchkin wrote:You are reading into it things that didn't happen. If O'Connor was choking Bennett in the collapsed maul, then serious damage would have been done. O'Connor held him as any player would do, although it probably looks worse because Bennett was unconscious at that time. So, no. It wasn't plain dirty, but rather just your interpretation of what actually happened leading you to believe that, for whatever reason.

I don't understand your point Munchkin. Reading into things that didn't happen? It's all in the video. Bennett is rendered unconscious because he is held around the neck by O'Connor at the bottom of the ruck. 

You're saying it looked more serious than it was because Bennett was unconscious? But he was unconscious because O'Connor had him illegally around the neck?

Anyway, back to the OP. I agree with most posters in that I don't think the choke tackle should be banned, but it should be refereed better. As someone above said, you aim for the ball in a choke tackle. High tackle rules still apply, so anything above the shoulders is illegal.

Because you were commenting on O'Connor holding him in the collapsed maul, not when Bennett was rendered unconscious during the choke tackle which was illegal, due to his arm slipping up, but the consequences were accidental. Yes, I know all about the video. I have watched it about 2 dozen times now, and have no wish to subject myself to watching it again!  

Agree, it shouldn't be banned, but reffed better. I would also say the same about the ruck. Some players holding heads in an arm-lock before pulling them over the top of the ruck. Much more dangerous in my view.

Fair point Munchkin, but we'll have to agree to disagree. I just think holding onto the neck of a player on the ground when he's not affecting play is uncalled for. 

I completely agree with your second point about rucking. I can't remember who said it or where I heard it, but I always remember a club coach saying that at a ruck 'if you pull a player's neck, their body will follow'. It's so dangerous, and sooner or later someone's going to get seriously injured.

Has anyone read this article from the BBC yet. They have absolutely no idea what they are talking about! Here are some quotes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31638558

"A choke tackle is when a defending player holds an attacker off the ground by wrapping an arm around his neck and shoulders"

The goal is to create a maul by keeping the ballcarrier on his feet and stopping him from releasing it to a teamate, then to either rip the ball or make it unplayable. No need for grabbing players by the neck!

"In a choke tackle the attacker is wrapped so tightly that they seem to be being choked by the defender"

Hyperbole!

The BBC do not have a clue, but what else is new.

ask Shaun Edwards

In Cardiff, the desperate Welsh defenders tried it on an England runner, and Hibbard's head crashed into North's to poleaxe him for his second concussion of the match. The attacker was unscathed. Dangerous maybe, but in a friendly fire kind of way. Happens quite a bit..how would you legislate against that risk ?