The "choke tackle" debate

[fleabane]

Is it destroying attacking rugby? Will Greenwood article claims it is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... rugby.html

[DickyP]

I must admit I disagree entirely: the game is so ridiculously artificially skewed in favour of the attack these days that it is nice to have legal method to defend and win a ball (well a scrum anyway).

Virtually every other advantage has a) been given to the attack through making players act unnaturally, or 2) involves 'condoned' cheating.

[Noddy555]

Whatever the arguments are about, the choke tackle is basically wrong and infringes the rules of the game. It should be an immediate yellow card and then a red card if the same player repeats the offence together with a good talking to by the ref with both captains. We don't want to go down the same channel as Rugby League were choke tackles are almost de rigeur

[Skin_and_Muscle]

I don't see a problem with it. A ruck requires the ball to be on the floor. If it is held up, as is often the case in a collapsed maul that is the fault of neither side, then there is no obligation to comply with rucking laws.

[northerntiger]

How is it against the laws of the game (laws not rules)

[TigerAlex]

I don't have a problem with the "choke tackle" itself. What I do have a problem with is, once the referee has called "maul," players from the defending team piling in, pulling it to ground/then allowing it to go to ground and laying all over the ball. When this happens, I would like to see the referee shout "everybody roll" or "everybody release." As it is, the maul collapses and you have defenders laying all over the place and making no effort to move away, or even defenders on the floor, latched onto the ball and not letting it go. If you're on the floor you're out of the game and you should have to release the ball, and that includes the attacker in this case too.

I think that would solve most of the problems people have with it. I agree that it's nice to see a legitimate way to defend and it isn't easy to hold a player up and prevent their team from getting a drive on. Making the players on the floor release and roll away wouldn't take it away as a defensive tactic, but it would make it safer and remove (for the most part) the bit most people find frustrating.

[TigerAlex]

I'd have Lawes over Deacon, but I'm not sure about Slater and Kitchener. I think if you were to rate them out of 10 as players, they'd probably all be about the same, but I think they are all very different players and bring different things to the game. Who you'd play would depend on who else is in the team, what sort of game plan you have and who you're playing. I think for balance I'd keep Slater and it would be a toss up between Kitchener and Lawes, depending on the above, with the one not starting on the bench.

[BJ.]

I'd have Lawes over Deacon, but I'm not sure about Slater and Kitchener. I think if you were to rate them out of 10 as players, they'd probably all be about the same, but I think they are all very different players and bring different things to the game. Who you'd play would depend on who else is in the team, what sort of game plan you have and who you're playing. I think for balance I'd keep Slater and it would be a toss up between Kitchener and Lawes, depending on the above, with the one not starting on the bench.

OK, I give in. What has second row selection got to do with the pros and cons of the choke tackle?

[biffer]

I'm with tigeralex on this one - I've got no problem with the choke tackle, I'd just like to see the laws about mauls being enforced once the ref calls maul. The amount of side entry and pulling down that goes on is ridiculous.

[Isambard]

I must admit I disagree entirely: the game is so ridiculously artificially skewed in favour of the attack these days that it is nice to have legal method to defend and win a ball (well a scrum anyway).

Virtually every other advantage has a) been given to the attack through making players act unnaturally, or 2) involves 'condoned' cheating.

Couldn't disagree more. I think that defence rules rugby and that attack is so restricted by choke tackles, drift defences, mindless kicking, and referees. Read the article by Will Greenwood this am and agree with his thinking.

[Isambard]

I must admit I disagree entirely: the game is so ridiculously artificially skewed in favour of the attack these days that it is nice to have legal method to defend and win a ball (well a scrum anyway).

Virtually every other advantage has a) been given to the attack through making players act unnaturally, or 2) involves 'condoned' cheating.

Couldn't disagree more. I think that defence rules rugby and that attack is so restricted by choke tackles, drift defences, mindless kicking, and referees. Read the article by Will Greenwood this am and agree with his thinking.

[TigerAlex]

I'd have Lawes over Deacon, but I'm not sure about Slater and Kitchener. I think if you were to rate them out of 10 as players, they'd probably all be about the same, but I think they are all very different players and bring different things to the game. Who you'd play would depend on who else is in the team, what sort of game plan you have and who you're playing. I think for balance I'd keep Slater and it would be a toss up between Kitchener and Lawes, depending on the above, with the one not starting on the bench.

OK, I give in. What has second row selection got to do with the pros and cons of the choke tackle?

Oh oops. I could have sworn I'd posted that on the "Saints Team" thread

[jgriffin]

When the choke tackle is made by two players, we are at the beginning of a maul which is cemented by an attacker joining from the attacking side. The ref should call a maul. Preventing an attacking player from joining is a penalty offence, and joining is possible even with a defender coming round to the attacking side. If then the defenders fall down, penalty to attack.
On Friday mauls were formed but Richards didn't call them until late in the first half and I suspect I heard Ashley tell him

[Bill W (2)]

When the choke tackle is made by two players, we are at the beginning of a maul which is cemented by an attacker joining from the attacking side. The ref should call a maul. Preventing an attacking player from joining is a penalty offence, and joining is possible even with a defender coming round to the attacking side. If then the defenders fall down, penalty to attack.
On Friday mauls were formed but Richards didn't call them until late in the first half and I suspect I heard Ashley tell him

I agree JG. There is nothing wrong per se with a "choke tackle". What is wrong is how the referees fail to apply the laws of the game after them.

[DickyP]

I must admit I disagree entirely: the game is so ridiculously artificially skewed in favour of the attack these days that it is nice to have legal method to defend and win a ball (well a scrum anyway).

Virtually every other advantage has a) been given to the attack through making players act unnaturally, or 2) involves 'condoned' cheating.

Couldn't disagree more. I think that defence rules rugby and that attack is so restricted by choke tackles, drift defences, mindless kicking, and referees. Read the article by Will Greenwood this am and agree with his thinking.

I did read it - that's why I disagreed. And if you think defence rules rugby then I give up... Everything has been changed to make attacking 'easier', which means there's no contest for the ball leading to defences lining up across the field and therefore no space. All the things WG complains about are a direct result of trying to make things easier for the attack.