Choke tackle

[Cora]

There has been a lot of debate in the media about the so-called choke tackle. Are players holding up an opposing player during a legal tackle allowed to hold that player above the shoulders? I am assuming that it is illegal to hold onto a player by the head either by choking him or putting him in a head lock or in any other way interfering with a player’s head. Is that true, and if so, what’s the specific rugby law about that and the so called choke tackle.

 

[damo]

There has been a lot of debate in the media about the so-called choke tackle. Are players holding up an opposing player during a legal tackle allowed to hold that player above the shoulders? I am assuming that it is illegal to hold onto a player by the head either by choking him or putting him in a head lock or in any other way interfering with a player’s head. Is that true, and if so, what’s the specific rugby law about that and the so called choke tackle.

That is just a high tackle. Illegal for at least the last hundred years. 10.4(e) will do it.

The "choke tackle" refers to the highly effective and totally legal strategy of holding a ball carrier up and not letting him get to ground so as to force a maul, and then a maul turnover. The "choke" is a figurative expression, not meant to describe a literal choking. Unless the tackle is made above the shoulders then there is no issue with it.

 

[TheBFG]

had a pi$$y mother come to me after a game recently asking me why I was allowing my players to "choke" her son's team :shrug:

Oh how we laughed, (when she eventually calmed down!)

 

[crossref]

i think the phrase choke tackle in this context came from the idea of choking up the ball, so that the ball can't escape out the back.

 

[Pegleg]

Sadly many (most?) "choke tackles" (of course they are not tackles at all!) end up with a player being grabbed around the neck. They are rarely penalised.

 

[ChrisR]

Sadly many (most?) "choke tackles" (of course they are not tackles at all!) end up with a player being grabbed around the neck. They are rarely penalised.

But they should be!

I prefer the term "smother tackle". But that could be misconstrued too.

 

[TheBFG]

Sadly many (most?) "choke tackles" (of course they are not tackles at all!) end up with a player being grabbed around the neck. They are rarely penalised.

Really? Well that's S Wales for you. I''d expect all refs to ping that. Choke tackles are usually around the ball, thus stopping them from getting the ball away from the maul.

it of course isn't a "tackle" either :wink:

 

[Taff]

... The "choke tackle" refers to the highly effective and totally legal strategy of holding a ball carrier up and not letting him get to ground so as to force a maul, and then a maul turnover. The "choke" is a figurative expression, not meant to describe a literal choking. Unless the tackle is made above the shoulders then there is no issue with it.

But they should be! I prefer the term "smother tackle". But that could be misconstrued too.

The term "choke tackle" seems to mean different things to different people.

To me, a "choke tackle" occurs when an opponent stands behind the BC with his arm around the BCs neck so that he can easily prevent him from defending the ball or going to ground. To a lot of others apparently it describes the act of smothering the BC preventing him going to ground.

Like Marauder, I reckon a "choke tackle" and a "smother tackle" are totally different but I've given up arguing with people who want to look at it differently.

 

[damo]

Meanwhile in Wales...

Warren: "Shaun, I notice that our provinces and our national team struggle against the choke tackle - as defense coach I want you to come up with something to help us"
Shaun: "I'll talk to the press and tell people it should be banned because It's dangerous"

 

[Pegleg]

Really? Well that's S Wales for you. I''d expect all refs to ping that. Choke tackles are usually around the ball, thus stopping them from getting the ball away from the maul.

it of course isn't a "tackle" either :wink:

Nothing to do with geography. The aim is to choke the ball. That the player often becomes the one choked is the problem. It's not a tactic used much down here. But here, just as in other countries, they become illegal far too often.

 

[Pegleg]

Meanwhile in Wales...

Warren: "Shaun, I notice that our provinces and our national team struggle against the choke tackle - as defense coach I want you to come up with something to help us"
Shaun: "I'll talk to the press and tell people it should be banned because It's dangerous"

We don't have provinces. Sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

But they should be!

I prefer the term "smother tackle". But that could be misconstrued too.

Of course they should. That is my point.

The terminology is a secondary issue.

 

[Pegleg]

The term "choke tackle" seems to mean different things to different people.

To me, a "choke tackle" occurs when an opponent stands behind the BC with his arm around the BCs neck so that he can easily prevent him from defending the ball or going to ground. To a lot of others apparently it describes the act of smothering the BC preventing him going to ground.

Like Marauder, I reckon a "choke tackle" and a "smother tackle" are totally different but I've given up arguing with people who want to look at it differently.

YOu are wrong.

A "choke tackle" originally was an attempot to smother the ball. That they become illegal far too easily / quickly is the issue. Whatever we call the tactic. Choke, Smother or anything else matter little. If the "Tackle" ends up around the neck it is illegal and referees (US!!!!!!) should be dealing with it as per the laws of the game. That we don't is down to our failure and we should be taken to task over it.

Of cours we can make petty jingoistic points about a New Zealander and an English man in charge of a Welsh team. But why? Illegal / dangerous play is simply that and we all should want to remove it from the game.

 

[Browner]

Meanwhile in Wales...

Warren: "Shaun, I notice that our provinces and our national team struggle against the choke tackle - as defense coach I want you to come up with something to help us"
Shaun: "I'll talk to the press and tell people it should be penalised because other teams are better at it than us , failing that you should give the problem to our attack coach "

Damo,

FTFY !
:biggrin:

 

[Browner]

Sadly many (most?) "choke tackles" (of course they are not tackles at all!) end up with a player being grabbed around the neck. They are rarely penalised.

Pegleg,
I'd say that in most of my matches one of the earliest PK's I invariably give is for " contacting the neck is too high " loud and clear signalling for opponents to hear also, it sets a clear benchmark for the rest of the fixture.

Rarely get any problems after that, and escalation is uncomplained at.

 

[Dixie]

To a lot of others apparently it describes the act of smothering the BC preventing him going to ground.

So you think many people believe that the Irish choke tackle involves placing a hand over the BC's nose and mouth, thereby preventing him from breathing? And that in some way, this suffocation technique prevents the BC going to ground?

People struggling to understand the concept of a choke tackle appear to have a problem with metaphor. As a literalist myself, I can understand this - but I can also see that it doesn't help to move the discussion along.

Let's all agree that wringing an opponent's neck to prevent him breathing is illegal, and will result in a red card at least. Let's also agree that covering a player's breathing orifices to prevent him breathing is also illegal and will result in a red card at least. Having agreed that, let's then ask whether Ireland's highly successful last several seasons have been based on either of these practices? And when we find that they have had very few red cards in that period, let's think hard about whether metaphor might be in play, such that the Irish are said to either choke off the supply of the ball, or to smother the supply of the ball.

 

[Phil E]

So you think many people believe that the Irish choke tackle involves placing a hand over the BC's nose and mouth, thereby preventing him from breathing? And that in some way, this suffocation technique prevents the BC going to ground?

People struggling to understand the concept of a choke tackle appear to have a problem with metaphor. As a literalist myself, I can understand this - but I can also see that it doesn't help to move the discussion along.

Let's all agree that wringing an opponent's neck to prevent him breathing is illegal, and will result in a red card at least. Let's also agree that covering a player's breathing orifices to prevent him breathing is also illegal and will result in a red card at least. Having agreed that, let's then ask whether Ireland's highly successful last several seasons have been based on either of these practices? And when we find that they have had very few red cards in that period, let's think hard about whether metaphor might be in play, such that the Irish are said to either choke off the supply of the ball, or to smother the supply of the ball.

Sanity at last!!

 

[TheBFG]

So you think many people believe that the Irish choke tackle involves placing a hand over the BC's nose and mouth, thereby preventing him from breathing? And that in some way, this suffocation technique prevents the BC going to ground?

People struggling to understand the concept of a choke tackle appear to have a problem with metaphor. As a literalist myself, I can understand this - but I can also see that it doesn't help to move the discussion along.

Let's all agree that wringing an opponent's neck to prevent him breathing is illegal, and will result in a red card at least. Let's also agree that covering a player's breathing orifices to prevent him breathing is also illegal and will result in a red card at least. Having agreed that, let's then ask whether Ireland's highly successful last several seasons have been based on either of these practices? And when we find that they have had very few red cards in that period, let's think hard about whether metaphor might be in play, such that the Irish are said to either choke off the supply of the ball, or to smother the supply of the ball.

such a way with words our Dixie :wink:

 

[Taff]

You are wrong.

I don’t think I am, but as I said, I’ve given up worrying about other people being wrong.

... Whatever we call the tactic. Choke, Smother or anything else matter little.

I think it matters a lot – in my book a “choke tackle” is illegal and will cost you a PK. A ”smother tackle” is not illegal and we play on. You're talking as if it's the same thing. It's a different tactic.

... If the "Tackle" ends up around the neck it is illegal and referees (US!!!!!!) should be dealing with it as per the laws of the game. That we don't is down to our failure and we should be taken to task over it. ... ? Illegal / dangerous play is simply that and we all should want to remove it from the game

I agree, and I do. I very very rarely get what I call a “choke tackle” but when I do it’s a PK. Nobody argues.

So you think many people believe that the Irish choke tackle involves placing a hand over the BC's nose and mouth, thereby preventing him from breathing?

No. If I was going to choke someone, I wouldn’t do it like that.

And that in some way, this suffocation technique prevents the BC going to ground?

This isn’t the best photo I’ve seen of what I would call a “choke tackle” but it’s the best I could find in a rush.

http://www.intouchrugby.com/magazin...nt/uploads/2014/11/irish.jpg&w=630&h=250&zc=1

If Gold was more upright and the Green player had better leverage, too bloody right I reckon that technique would (illegally) prevent the BC getting to ground.

 

[MrQeu]

You are all refering to the Grapple Tackle, which while someway legal or permitted in RL it should be not in RU.

Choke tackle is nor choking, nor a tackle.

 

[Browner]

As a literalist myself .......

Careful, under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2000 you might be confessing to offending!

Not to be taken litter'ally though.epper: