RugbyRebels

I'm no fan of the choke tackle as it's kind of negative. If I had my way if the attacker is held up but the attacking team get a shove on in the maul and advance they should get the put in at the scrum. It was like that in the past. If the attacker is held up and the maul is static and going nowhere then defending team gets the put in.

Matt Ha wrote:I'm no fan of the choke tackle as it's kind of negative. If I had my way if the attacker is held up but the attacking team get a shove on in the maul and advance they should get the put in at the scrum. It was like that in the past. If the attacker is held up and the maul is static and going nowhere then defending team gets the put in.

All tackling is negative.

Matt Ha wrote:I'm no fan of the choke tackle as it's kind of negative. If I had my way if the attacker is held up but the attacking team get a shove on in the maul and advance they should get the put in at the scrum. It was like that in the past. If the attacker is held up and the maul is static and going nowhere then defending team gets the put in.

Those of us with long enough memories will remember why it was changed. Long, interminable rolling mauls were meant to be disincentivised by the risk of losing the put in at a subsequent scrum. Every change in the law has consequences which may not be the ones expected.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Matt Ha wrote:I'm no fan of the choke tackle as it's kind of negative. If I had my way if the attacker is held up but the attacking team get a shove on in the maul and advance they should get the put in at the scrum. It was like that in the past. If the attacker is held up and the maul is static and going nowhere then defending team gets the put in.

All tackling is negative.

I think the thing about this one is that it leads to a scrum and no one likes them. Javing said that I think it is a good rule, I would just enforce it a bit more accurately both in terms of when someone is down and the pulling down a maul point someone made above

Cameo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Matt Ha wrote:I'm no fan of the choke tackle as it's kind of negative. If I had my way if the attacker is held up but the attacking team get a shove on in the maul and advance they should get the put in at the scrum. It was like that in the past. If the attacker is held up and the maul is static and going nowhere then defending team gets the put in.

All tackling is negative.

I think the thing about this one is that it leads to a scrum and no one likes them. Javing said that I think it is a good rule, I would just enforce it a bit more accurately both in terms of when someone is down and the pulling down a maul point someone made above

Aye. They need to enforce the law about dragging it down and make people release once they are on the ground - they may not have to roll away in a collapsed maul but they aren't entitled to play the ball.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Cameo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
All tackling is negative.

I think the thing about this one is that it leads to a scrum and no one likes them. Javing said that I think it is a good rule, I would just enforce it a bit more accurately both in terms of when someone is down and the pulling down a maul point someone made above

Aye. They need to enforce the law about dragging it down and make people release once they are on the ground - they may not have to roll away in a collapsed maul but they aren't entitled to play the ball.

Yeah, some refs at the lower level seem to let you leap on top of it from any angle once it is down to stop it coming out. Fun to do but still!

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Cameo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
All tackling is negative.

I think the thing about this one is that it leads to a scrum and no one likes them. Javing said that I think it is a good rule, I would just enforce it a bit more accurately both in terms of when someone is down and the pulling down a maul point someone made above

Aye. They need to enforce the law about dragging it down and make people release once they are on the ground - they may not have to roll away in a collapsed maul but they aren't entitled to play the ball.

Yeah, penalising collapsing would help (where it happens).

I also wonder if tweaking the law so that any player off his feet has to roll/move away but players on their feet can still hold on etc would help?

Big D wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Cameo wrote:
I think the thing about this one is that it leads to a scrum and no one likes them. Javing said that I think it is a good rule, I would just enforce it a bit more accurately both in terms of when someone is down and the pulling down a maul point someone made above

Aye. They need to enforce the law about dragging it down and make people release once they are on the ground - they may not have to roll away in a collapsed maul but they aren't entitled to play the ball.

Yeah, penalising collapsing would help (where it happens).

I also wonder if tweaking the law so that any player off his feet has to roll/move away but players on their feet can still hold on etc would help?

I'd rather they just had to release. I think getting them to move out of the way is unlikely.