Wales defence coach Shaun Edwards caused a stir at a press conference yesterday when he launched into an impassioned rant against the in-vogue “choke tackle”, labelling it dangerous and a “blight on the game”.
It is a tackling technique that sees the defender hit the attacker around chest height and hold them off the floor, often with the help of a teammate, thereby creating a maul. If momentum is stopped or the maul subsequently collapses (legally), the defensive team usually wins a turnover.
It is a technique that has brought Ireland plenty of success in the past few years, and their defence coach Les Kiss is widely credited with pioneering it at international level. More recently, England have been using it to good effect. You can see an example of how it works in the video below.
Video credit: PRO12 Rugby
Edwards, though, says it is a blight on the game, and called for it to be banned.
“I think the choke tackle is very dangerous,” said the Wales defence coach. “To me it is a blight on the game that encourages high tackling. Everyone is talking about concussion, so let’s start with this.
“Does anyone think it adds to the game and makes it more exciting? What happens after a choke tackle? A scrum. Referees should let it go for longer.”
What is your opinion on the choke tackle? Is it a good defensive technique that should be allowed to flourish, or is it indeed a blight on the game? Vote in our poll below and leave your thoughts underneath.
Loading ...
33 replies on “The choke tackle: a blight on the game of rugby?”
less scrums – yes please
The welsh coaches seem to be doing a lot of moaning lately….
This is a tough one to call. When my team uses it occasionally, I like it. When it’s used a lot against us, I think it’s a pain. I think that Edwards is being disingenuous though when he conflates it with the concussion issue. A typical choke tackle has less hard impact as the tackler is trying to wrap up the ball carrier rather than put him hard down on the ground.
I think it is a fine ploy and requires the attackers to think smart – don’t get held up, don’t go into a two man tackle by yourself. It is also a defensive skill to execute it.
If people didn’t enter the tackle area so upright, the defence wouldn’t have that opportunity anyway…
There is a consistency issue though, some refs have a diff interpretation as to whether it’s a maul or the tackler is not releasing the tackled player.
Well the attacker is not “tackled” until he hits the floor (think it’s knee down right?) so no requirement to release…
Understood but there is inconsistency on the “knee down”. I’ve seen players dragged around with both legs almost flat on the floor but maul is called.
All the attacker has to do is to take contact low, and the defender is immediately on the back foot.
I have more of an issue with the fact that when a maul goes to ground you can lose possession despite being the team moving forward – it’s that law that encourages this kind of defence in the first place.
In your typical maul, off an attacking line-out for example, the responsibility is with the team in possession to be able to get the ball out if the maul is stopped, or goes down legally. If they can’t, they lose possession. Without this law the advantage would be far too great in favour of the attacking team. If you can come up with a fair way of negating this law for a maul formed from a tackle in open-play then there might be a way around it, but otherwise it’s an idiosyncracy in the laws that defenses can take advantage of. As it stands the best tactic is to avoid getting caught in a choke-tackle!
Hit the nail on the head Stevo. ‘Banning the choke tackle’ would require a total re think of the way the maul is refereed.
I believe it to be an integral part of the modern game. The blight in the game for me at this time is the inconsistency by referees in referring the scrum. Some are pinging for penalties when both sides are still ‘up’ ie front rows not gone to ground. Telling scrum-halves to play the ball as it is at the back of the scrum even though the front-rows have collapsed, positive management; others whistling for penalties. Scrums that have wheeled through 90 where some giving penalties, some resetting. etc. etc. etc.
To be honest it’s no more boring than flankers flopping over the tackle with no hands on the ball and winning pens.
It is very effective the problem I have with it is players being “choked” round the neck which if there is a collapse could potentially lead to serious neck injuries imo
Precisely!
I don’t see anything wrong with the choke tackle per-se – if done legally and without grabbing ball carrier around the neck/head it’s a skill worthy of gaining a turn over, but too often the second tackler goes too high and escapes punishment.
I don’t know if this is a directive given to referees or if there’s some technicality that means it isn’t illegal for the second tackler to go high, but either way it should be stopped.
“It is a technique that has brought Ireland plenty of success in the past few years”
It’s just not cricket! – the Paddies and thinking!? – shouldn’t be allowed!!! Mick is getting more devious every day. What next? – Uncontested mauls after line outs? They probably won’t put up a single Garreyowen on Sunday!
DDD
Whilst I respect Shaun normally, he is talking rubbish here. There is no danger of concussion unless someone deliberately collapses the mail which is already covered by the rules, as is tackling/grabbing around the neck. So no need to change the rules, just how the players are playing the game.
I think when Ireland first started doing it then it was innovative and and they rightly got plaudits for it, but it isn’t exciting in itself and the result of it is a stoppage and a scrum, when a conventional tackle results in a ruck and the ball remaining in play. Don’t we all want the ball in play more?
It does also lead to upright tackling which has been pointed out by those more knowledgable than myself as one of the things causing concussions. I think Shaun Edwards has a point, although not a clear cut one.
Just for discussion and not an outright advocation, but how about a maul not being formed until a member of the attacking side binds with the ball carrier? That way the defending team is still rewarded for successful defence of a genuine mall and otherwise if the ball fails to emerge then it can be ruled an incomplete tackle and the attacking side can have the scrum?
That is the law – a maul needs one player from each team, plus the ball-carrier. It does make you wonder how long the referee would let such an incomplete tackle last for if nobody else joined in though! The ball carrier would probably get driven back sufficiently fast that the defence would get the put in for going forward anyway.
Yes I guess that’s why a fellow attacker has to come in, hence a maul. It probably isn’t workable.
Id argue that solving the scrum rather than trying to stop things leading to a scrum would be a more sensible way of approaching this. I liked the idea posted here on RugbyBlog about turning scrum pens into free kicks instead to try and coax teams away from trying to get scrum penalties. The choke tackle is ingenious and a very good way of defending. Maybe momentum should be considered when awarding the scrum for collapsed maul – if one side or other was winning the maul then they should have put-in – defender still gets a bonus in the form of time to reset the defence if they were on the back foot before executing the choke tackle.
I cant help but think a little bit of this is the fact that Shaun developed a sound defensive tactic into something amazing with Lydiate and Warburton (chop tackle), but that has been surpassed by another defensive tactic developed by Kiss. It has a whiff of sour grapes tbh.
is there something to be said for turning all scrum free kicks into an option? so you can tap and go instead if you want to?
When Ireland first started doing it, it did get a bit frustrating, but sides have adapted and I don’t see it as an obvious blight on the game. I would like to see choke takes around the neck properly sanctioned though, but otherwise I think a it’s a legit form of turnover and quite a skill to perfect.
I think that the choke tackle is fine – although the name makes it sound a bit more dangerous than it actually is.
My problem, is the collapsed maul, often resulting from a choke tackle, where players on the defensive side all dive in to ensure that no ball is coming out.
Joining a collapsed maul from any position? Surely that is not a sensible law?
How about going back to awarding the scrum at a collapsed maul, to the side going forward?
The choke tackle requires some skill, or more likely technique & strength, but how does it benefit the game? Does it enhance attacking play? Does it slow the game down? Do defenders have a legit right to stop the (boringly overused?) mauling juggernaught?
Well, it slows the game & turns the ball over to the ‘D’, so it hardly enhances attack or playing time. Scrums have already been mentioned in this context (of time wasting, on average 10 minutes per game), not to mention lying on & NOT rolling @ ruck, refusing to immediately give up possession following a penalty & kicking the ball away AFTER the whistle (stopping the quick tap) & so on. Does the game need more of the same? Unlikely. However, should teams be able to stop or defend against the opposition? Well, of course they do.
Whilst I’m against stuff that slows the game or ‘cheating’ (like the crooked feed) & my instincts tell me that the former may be the case, I nevertheless think that the so called ‘choke’ action ought to be given a season or so to see if it should stay in the game. See how it develops. Teams will undoubtedly attempt counter it with some measure or other. Who knows, they may even flood the maul with their packs to do so resulting in forwards being forwards again instead of ‘seagulls’ clogging up back lines!? Crumbs!
A final thought. How about renaming the tackle? For me, ‘choke’, has the negative connotation of someone being scragged around his (or her) Gregory Peck. Why not ‘grapple’ or ‘upright’ tackle instead? Won’t frighten mummies then.
I think it got the name due to the propensity of the second tackler to grab the ball carrier around the neck – Donnacha O’Callaghan was particularly guilty of this.
If referees penalised such incidents as high tackles I expect we’d see fewer incidents of the choke tackle – not only would it be harder to execute, there’d also be a risk to getting it wrong.
Perhaps if the ‘choke’ element were removed it could be referred to as a ‘cuddle tackle’ – far friendlier!
Well, of course they should.
Edwards is trying to get in the referees head again, as he did with the obstruction issue before the England game.
A choke tackle is less dangerous and more legal than throwing yourself at someone’s legs with your torso, and less detrimental to the game than bridging at a ruck, or being the worst nation at illegal behaviour at the scrum. There must be a reason Edwards doesn’t mention these, ah now I remember why………..
Remind me of a number of posts showing how the choke tackle really isn’t that useful for Ireland. They just do it a lot, but the advantages that they get isn’t worth anything. A bit old post but nonetheless one I could find quickly – I remember a longer one with a bit more stats from many matches – https://rugbyposts.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/six-nations-irelands-choke-tackle/
I think the driving maul has become a blight; now and again would be OK but every team is stuffing the ball up their jumpers at the first available opportunity
Let’s be honest anyone who plays the game has used the choke tackle from a young age. If a player goes into contact with a body position that’s too upright they deserve what they get. If it keeps happening to you then you need to improve your technique.
More mileage out of this blog than a Firestone… but agree with Anon about ‘grab(ing) the ball carrier around the neck’. Should be barred. It’s potentially dangerous. Some forethought & prevention is better than waiting until someone is maimed.