Choke-tackle mauls

[Woddy]

Can someone explain the laws on these to me please.

Used very well by the Irish, but I do not understand why the ref blows as soon as the resulting maul falls to the ground. I thought possession goes to the side not taking the ball into a maul only when it becomes unplayable. That's not something you can determine immediately on a maul collapsing. Line-out mauls near a try-line often then turn into a ruck when they collapse (unless blown for deliberate collapsing) as the attacking team still have the ball. With choke-tackle mauls, the balls is being competed for, but once on the ground everyone should release and allow whichever team has momentum and the better support to take it. It's not always buried under a mountain of players.

[Uncle fester]

The laws say that the ball needs to be playable immediately, which implies without excavation or rucking.

[Uncle fester]

Has a case a few years ago where a defending player quite deliberately jumped over the maul flopped down on top of the ball as the maul went to ground.

Penalty against him. Ball would have been playable otherwise. He had some difficulty with this as he had won a perfectly good scrum from a maul a few minutes before.

[Woddy]

"Immediately" is a very elastic concept of time within the rules. Tackled players can have seconds to release the ball; there's a time-warp around the ball emerging from the back of a ruck before defending players can engage it or the scrum-half. Even with line-out mauls under complete control of the attacking team, they don't get the ball out immediately on the maul going to ground.

[duke]

The maul I didn’t understand yesterday was when Itoje (?) caught it from a kickoff, Beirne came round, maul formed and when the maul was called over, Ireland were awarded the put in - my understanding is that the side receiving the kickoff should get the put in in those circumstances?

[Big D]

The maul I didn’t understand yesterday was when Itoje (?) caught it from a kickoff, Beirne came round, maul formed and when the maul was called over, Ireland were awarded the put in - my understanding is that the side receiving the kickoff should get the put in in those circumstances?

Only from a kick in open field.

[Random1]

I hate the choke tackle. Its only purpose is to spoil. Those sorts of options should be reduced by the laws as much as possible and sympathy given to the attaching team for me.

I know that’s not what the law says.

[Uncle fester]

The maul I didn’t understand yesterday was when Itoje (?) caught it from a kickoff, Beirne came round, maul formed and when the maul was called over, Ireland were awarded the put in - my understanding is that the side receiving the kickoff should get the put in in those circumstances?

Read the laws. It specifically excludes mauls formed directly from a kick off.

Also Beirne came round before the maul formed so he wasn't offside.

[Uncle fester]

I hate the choke tackle. Its only purpose is to spoil. Those sorts of options should be reduced by the laws as much as possible and sympathy given to the attaching team for me.

I know that’s not what the law says.

Cannot agree.
One of the very first things I learned when playing as a teenager was not too carry too upright or high.

Ball security first.

[duke]

The maul I didn’t understand yesterday was when Itoje (?) caught it from a kickoff, Beirne came round, maul formed and when the maul was called over, Ireland were awarded the put in - my understanding is that the side receiving the kickoff should get the put in in those circumstances?

Read the laws. It specifically excludes mauls formed directly from a kick off.

Also Beirne came round before the maul formed so he wasn't offside.

Did I say anywhere that Beirne was offside? I was just asking a question which was answered above

[Uncle fester]

Oh I get that. Just added the point. Think Youngs queried it in the game.

[Happyhooker]

Oh I get that. Just added the point. Think Youngs queried it in the game.

Youngs was probably asking what his own name was

[Yr Alban]

"Immediately" is a very elastic concept of time within the rules. Tackled players can have seconds to release the ball; there's a time-warp around the ball emerging from the back of a ruck before defending players can engage it or the scrum-half. Even with line-out mauls under complete control of the attacking team, they don't get the ball out immediately on the maul going to ground.

This is absolutely true. There’s a huge amount of room for interpretation around how long you have to place the ball/recycle/etc. This isn’t a major issue as long as the referee is consistent about it, but they often aren’t. In Scotland v Ireland, Ireland’s second try was set up from a penalty given for holding on, despite the fact that the ball had visibly been released and was coming back on our side. It wasn’t as if it had taken long to do it, either - no more than a second or two. At other times, 5 or 6 seconds was perfectly OK.

[Paddington Bear]

It was weird to see it make a comeback yesterday. By and large refs have been calling them as tackles.

It’s a shithouse tactic, really boring rugby and very difficult to counter

[Uncle fester]

It was weird to see it make a comeback yesterday. By and large refs have been calling them as tackles.

It’s a shithouse tactic, really boring rugby and very difficult to counter

It really isn't. Just go to ground quicker. Means you don't get as many offloads but you can't have it all your own way.

[I like neeps]

My main problem is as soon as the maul is called by a ref the team who created the mail then collapses it to get the scrum and always do. That should be called collapsing the maul and a penalty awarded to the attacking team.

[Uncle fester]

"Immediately" is a very elastic concept of time within the rules. Tackled players can have seconds to release the ball; there's a time-warp around the ball emerging from the back of a ruck before defending players can engage it or the scrum-half. Even with line-out mauls under complete control of the attacking team, they don't get the ball out immediately on the maul going to ground.

This is absolutely true. There’s a huge amount of room for interpretation around how long you have to place the ball/recycle/etc. This isn’t a major issue as long as the referee is consistent about it, but they often aren’t. In Scotland v Ireland, Ireland’s second try was set up from a penalty given for holding on, despite the fact that the ball had visibly been released and was coming back on our side. It wasn’t as if it had taken long to do it, either - no more than a second or two. At other times, 5 or 6 seconds was perfectly OK.

Asked this question before.
How immediate is immediate?
International ref who answered it said if the scrum half has to dig for the ball any longer than a second or two, it's unplayable.

[Margin__Walker]

I don't mind them for the most part. Adds another dimension and opportunity for the defending team to snag a turnover.

I do find maul is called too quickly on occasions though where the tackled player would have gotten to ground if it had played out for a few more seconds. Would prefer the benefit of those marginal calls being given to the attacking teams.

That's rugby though. All about ref's interpretations and fine as long as it's consistent.

[Uncle fester]

My main problem is as soon as the maul is called by a ref the team who created the mail then collapses it to get the scrum and always do. That should be called collapsing the maul and a penalty awarded to the attacking team.

Why would a defending team collapse the choke tackle maul? It is completely contrary to their interests.

What actually happens is that the attacking team realise they are in trouble and drive (not collapse) it to the ground to try and get the ball back.

[Niegs]

I hate the choke tackle. Its only purpose is to spoil. Those sorts of options should be reduced by the laws as much as possible and sympathy given to the attaching team for me.

I know that’s not what the law says.

Cannot agree.
One of the very first things I learned when playing as a teenager was not too carry too upright or high.

Ball security first.

Completely agree, Uncle Fester. You take it straight into contact and high, that's your problem. Too much of that in the game and I've been surprised to see the 'choke' drop off.

There was a time when the carrier was fighting to get a leg down and the ref was yelling 'tackle, release' to the defenders. I see it from time to time, but not nearly as much swarming around the ball carrier as we did during the 'choke' hey-day.

I suppose the downside is having to scrum when the opposition has been dicking you or if the scrum penalty lottery could be VERY hurtful if they end up getting an easy 3 pts or a kick to the corner despite your put-in.

[I like neeps]

My main problem is as soon as the maul is called by a ref the team who created the mail then collapses it to get the scrum and always do. That should be called collapsing the maul and a penalty awarded to the attacking team.

Why would a defending team collapse the choke tackle maul? It is completely contrary to their interests.

What actually happens is that the attacking team realise they are in trouble and drive (not collapse) it to the ground to try and get the ball back.

Because they get the ball back when it's collapsed?

[Uncle fester]

I don't mind them for the most part. Adds another dimension and opportunity for the defending team to snag a turnover.

I do find maul is called too quickly on occasions though where the tackled player would have gotten to ground if it had played out for a few more seconds. Would prefer the benefit of those marginal calls being given to the attacking teams.

That's rugby though. All about ref's interpretations and fine as long as it's consistent.

WR a few years ago instructed refs to wait a bit longer before calling the maul and also to give more latitude in terms of calling the tackle as being completed, i.e. knee on ground. Pierce called a few of those last night.

[Uncle fester]

My main problem is as soon as the maul is called by a ref the team who created the mail then collapses it to get the scrum and always do. That should be called collapsing the maul and a penalty awarded to the attacking team.

Why would a defending team collapse the choke tackle maul? It is completely contrary to their interests.

What actually happens is that the attacking team realise they are in trouble and drive (not collapse) it to the ground to try and get the ball back.

Because they get the ball back when it's collapsed?

Collapsing the maul is a foul play penalty. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

[Woddy]

Why would a defending team collapse the choke tackle maul? It is completely contrary to their interests.

What actually happens is that the attacking team realise they are in trouble and drive (not collapse) it to the ground to try and get the ball back.

Because they get the ball back when it's collapsed?

Collapsing the maul is a foul play penalty. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

But that's precisely what happens. It's not hard to allow these mini-mauls to collapse without being seen to do so deliberately.

[Random1]

I hate the choke tackle. Its only purpose is to spoil. Those sorts of options should be reduced by the laws as much as possible and sympathy given to the attaching team for me.

I know that’s not what the law says.

Cannot agree.
One of the very first things I learned when playing as a teenager was not too carry too upright or high.

Ball security first.

Each to their own - I just think it’s spoiling and I’d be ultra hot on any team using the tactic. Any hint of them collapsing, and they’d be pinged.

[Uncle fester]

Because they get the ball back when it's collapsed?

Collapsing the maul is a foul play penalty. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

But that's precisely what happens. It's not hard to allow these mini-mauls to collapse without being seen to do so deliberately.

You're confusing collapsing or pulling down a maul with a maul ending up on the ground. Not every maul ending up on the deck is a foul play penalty.

Once the ball is caught in a choke tackle, it's the attacking team who want to get it down because it's the only chance they have of getting the ball back.

[Niegs]

Collapsing the maul is a foul play penalty. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

But that's precisely what happens. It's not hard to allow these mini-mauls to collapse without being seen to do so deliberately.

You're confusing collapsing or pulling down a maul with a maul ending up on the ground. Not every maul ending up on the deck is a foul play penalty.

Once the ball is caught in a choke tackle, it's the attacking team who want to get it down because it's the only chance they have of getting the ball back.

Refs seem to find defensive faults most of the time, though, even if the attacking team had mad momentum and no effort to keep it up themselves, not to mention all kinds of obstruction at the take / when breaking off.

[Woddy]

Collapsing the maul is a foul play penalty. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

But that's precisely what happens. It's not hard to allow these mini-mauls to collapse without being seen to do so deliberately.

You're confusing collapsing or pulling down a maul with a maul ending up on the ground. Not every maul ending up on the deck is a foul play penalty.

Once the ball is caught in a choke tackle, it's the attacking team who want to get it down because it's the only chance they have of getting the ball back.

That doesn't appear to be true. What prompted me starting this thread was noting that the ref blows as soon as the choke-tackle maul hits the turf and gives possession to the defending team. I was surprised because I thought he would allow a short window for one side or other to retrieve the ball (all those in the floored maul having released it immediately, of course).

[JM2K6]

Collapsing the maul is a foul play penalty. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

But that's precisely what happens. It's not hard to allow these mini-mauls to collapse without being seen to do so deliberately.

You're confusing collapsing or pulling down a maul with a maul ending up on the ground. Not every maul ending up on the deck is a foul play penalty.

Once the ball is caught in a choke tackle, it's the attacking team who want to get it down because it's the only chance they have of getting the ball back.

No, you're wrong about this. Think about it - once the choke is in place, a collapse is very likely to result in a decision of "unplayable, scrum to defending team". The attacking team is unlikely to do that unless they've managed to free the ball, in which case they're likely to just play it straight from the maul anyway. For years it was never actually properly refereed as a maul; players weren't penalised for how they entered it, players weren't penalised for collapsing it. Then we had a brief (like 6 months) period of it being reffed correctly, and suddenly it went out of fashion...

I do not mind it as a tactic. I do want it refereed properly.

[Uncle fester]

Defending team applies a choke tackle. Ball is gone. The ball carrier has been wrapped up. The ref then calls maul and from that point, players have to enter the maul correctly. It's usually irrelevant at this point because the players who would appear to be offside were there to begin with, before the ref called it a maul.

It's pretty easy to counter. You just go low in heavy traffic so you can't get held up but it means you give up any chance of offloads. However going into a tackle upright means you're probably going to miss some of them.
That's the beauty of it as a tactic. It's a high risk contest for the ball but also high reward.

If teenagers can learn not to carry upright, surely pro players can judge it too and supporters can stop looking for laws to be changed to prevent something so basic in the game.

[JM2K6]

That's a lot of words that's ignored what everyone's said to you. But we agree on something: it *should* be reffed to the laws. It frequently isn't.

[Uncle fester]

Define reffed properly please?

[Paddington Bear]

But that's precisely what happens. It's not hard to allow these mini-mauls to collapse without being seen to do so deliberately.

You're confusing collapsing or pulling down a maul with a maul ending up on the ground. Not every maul ending up on the deck is a foul play penalty.

Once the ball is caught in a choke tackle, it's the attacking team who want to get it down because it's the only chance they have of getting the ball back.

That doesn't appear to be true. What prompted me starting this thread was noting that the ref blows as soon as the choke-tackle maul hits the turf and gives possession to the defending team. I was surprised because I thought he would allow a short window for one side or other to retrieve the ball (all those in the floored maul having released it immediately, of course).

Struck me Saturday that the ref had his whistle in his mouth before the choke tackle had even hit the ground. No chance to try and make the ball playable, no thought as to why it had gone down. Call it a tackle and let a game break out ffs.

[JM2K6]

Define reffed properly please?

Maybe read the posts??