When the Wallabies played Ireland in the 2011 Rugby World Cup, the Irish successfully used the ‘choke’ tackle to take away momentum from the Wallabies’ attack.
The result was the Irish holding up Australian runners six times, which led to five turnovers.
The Wallabies were slow to adapt to the Irish tactics and since that time other teams around the world have increased their emphasis on using the ‘choke’ tackle, with the Wallabies often struggling against it.
In their recent match against the Wallabies it was obvious the Springboks were trying to hold up the ball carriers and they achieved a crucial turnover when the Wallabies were in a good attacking position.
I’m sure we’ll see more of this tactic from the Springboks in Cape Town this weekend.
The laws relating to the ball not coming out of a maul are not new – not many people involved in rugby wouldn’t know of the ‘use it or lose it’ principle that applies to a maul and there has been no significant change to the laws in this area since the law book was simplified after professionalism was introduced.
Yet there still seems to be confusion from some fans, commentators and players regarding the laws on the ball becoming unplayable in a maul. The relevant law can be found here.
A maul can only be formed when at least one defender binds on to the ball carrier and at least one other teammate of the ball carrier also binds on them – therefore the minimum number of players on their feet which are required to form
a maul is three.
Once a maul is formed, if it doesn’t end successfully a scrum is called and the team that didn’t take the ball into the maul gets to feed the scrum.
There are only three ways a maul can end successfully (law 17.5):
1. The ball or the player carrying the ball leaves the maul;
2. The ball is on or over the goal-line;
3. The ball is on the ground.
It’s the last of these conditions that seems to cause most problems in understanding how the law works – the key word in that condition is ‘ball’.
In a tackle situation, if the ball carrier has at least one knee on the ground, is sitting on the ground or sitting on another player, they are deemed to have been taken to ground (law 15.3).
This applies whether the ball is on the ground or not.
The players around the ball must then release the ball and ball carrier and abide by the relevant tackle and ruck laws, including offside lines, before attempting to contest the ball again.
However, if a maul is formed the only time the ruck laws come into play is if the maul collapses and the ball touches the ground, not the ball carrier.
When that occurs and players are still on their feet, the maul becomes a ruck.
When the ball doesn’t touch the ground it becomes a collapsed maul and there is no mention in law 17 of a requirement for any player to release the ball or the ball carrier or to roll away.
This law regarding the ball becoming unplayable from a maul doesn’t apply where the ball carrier receives the ball from a kick. However, that exemption doesn’t include restarts.
The Irish obviously knew this law better than the Wallabies when they used the tactic in the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
From the complaints of the Wallabies on-field and some commentators, not many Australians knew how the law worked.
After the conclusion of that tournament, the ARU sought a clarification from the IRB on the maul laws and the circumstances that occurred in that match against Ireland.
On 14 November 2011, the IRB issued their clarification.
The clarification didn’t introduce any new law and simply confirmed how most people believed the law was meant to apply.
The key statements in that clarification were:
• If a maul collapses and the ball does not touch the ground, the player on his feet is not obliged to release the ball or ball carrier unless the ball touches the ground and a ruck is formed.
• At a collapsed maul there is no obligation in law for players to roll away unless a ruck subsequently occurs.
It is therefore absolutely clear once the referee calls ‘maul’ players can continue to hold on to the ball or the ball carrier and have no obligation to allow the attacking team a chance to play the ball.
It is also clear that unless the ball is immediately playable the referee must award a scrum – there is no time allowed to make the ball playable.
The wording of the ARU request for clarification is interesting as it gives the impression the Wallabies camp felt players should be releasing the ball and rolling away when a maul collapsed.
The IRB was unequivocal in its ruling that this was not the case.
Recently, Alan Jones called for the Wallabies to change their tactics and try to play with the ‘ball in the air’ by setting up mauls in general play to drag opposition forwards in to defend the maul so the Wallaby backline had more room to move.
His view was that playing with the ball ‘on the ground’ at a ruck, where opposition forwards fan out in defence, reduces the space available for attack and should be discouraged.
That tactic might have worked in the amateur days, when defence patterns were not as good, but with better defences and the use of the ‘choke’ tackle it would be an extremely risky tactic today.
Wallaby ball carriers still tend to go into contact too high and so are often caught out when a team implements the ‘choke’ tackle, particularly backline players.
Opposition teams target the Wallabies so they have to be aware of the need to lower their body height in contact and as soon as their momentum slows to go to ground.
It is then critical support runners are in close proximity so they can get into the ruck early to protect the ball.
Once a player is held up it is very difficult to get the ball to ground, but the best way is to rip downwards and roll a shoulder towards the ground at the same time, using your body weight to help you get down.
Dropping to the ground and trying to pull the ball downwards has little impact if the defender has wrapped around the ball.
More importantly, the ball carrier has to work hard not to get held up in the first place by going to ground early.
In defence, the key is to target the ball immediately. If you can get your arms wrapped around the ball then even if the ball carrier can wrestle to ground after the maul has formed, you may be able to hold the ball up like you would in trying to prevent a try.
Today’s video shows examples of how teams have been using the ‘choke’ tackle to create turnovers.
ant
Guest
I have a problem with the two different interpretations on the collapsed maul With the choke tackle maul the ref's are salivating, waiting whistle in mouth to blow "unplayable" as soon as it goes down; yet when it is a rolling maul set up from a lineout they allow the attacking team much more time to get the ball back. I don't know if the laws are different between the two mauls but they are certainly reff'd that way. When was the last time you saw a choke tackle maul turn into a penalty for collapsing when it does go to ground (i cant ever recall it happening) yet mysteriously there are the same incentives for the defence to bring it down once maul is called; and it seems 50% of collapsed lineout mauls end in a penalty
gaxman
Guest
If you want a good example of how to get out of a choke tackle watch the Force v Chiefs game (i think) from the super 15 this year. Twice in that match Godwin was held up in a chock tackle and both times he was able to rip from side to side with pure strength and get free. For a smallish guy and a back who had several players on him both times and mostly forwards i was mighty impressed. He is a future wallaby no doubt about it.
jeremy
Guest
So, the better team overall won then? Simply put, yeah.... It's not just the crews on the water, it's the development as well, Oracle just kicked it up a gear at the end. I was captivated for the entire LV and AC finals series with these incredible boats, firstly they're 72 foot catamarans with wings for sails, then they were pulling 35 knots downwind on a 20 knot breeze, then they were consistently foiling, then they were foil-foil gybing, then they were foiling upwind, then they were foiling in light winds. It was like watching the Formula 1 evolving from the old cigar-shaped four wheelers into today's ground-bound planes, all through the course of one series. I'm sat in Melbourne watching the complete evolution of these boats, online at 6am every morning to watch the racing on the AC channel on YouTube. Knew the names of the sailors, the tactics, the changes to the boats... The US got the edge, got better boatspeed and won eight straight. Can't argue with that, they were simply faster, like NZ were in the upwind legs of the first 9 races. Then come the final 3 races, and suddenly I have to listen to every talking head on the tv, every radio sports dick and every prick who reads the sports section and think they're an expert in sailing talk about epic chokes! Like that was all it was, like it was a simple as mentally turning up! thankfully in amongst the ignorami there are some awesome people, got chatting in a cafe in St Kilda with an Aussie guy who it turned out knew Tom Slingsby (OTUSA tactician) through some tenuous family connection. He's trying to fly to NZ so he can see the AC72s before they're destroyed, because for all the incredible technology on these boats and for all the innovation in getting them to the point they're at - they are too expensive to race, too dangerous to use as joy rides, and now out of date. Imagine that, the combined expertise of maybe a couple of hundred people who know how to build, sail, and race these boats. it just stops. Choke? No choke man. A hell of a regatta and a hell of a viewing experience. Pity about the outcome but hey, what memories. There is absolutely no shame in NZ's achievements.
Harry Jones
Guest
Helps to be a big lug, too. I think I could hold Mogg up with one arm. Maybe pick him up.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Mainly due to Deans strict game plan of running crash ball through McCabe. Deans was very poor at researching opposition teams. It was noted in many prematch reviews that Ireland would hold up McCabe and make it a maul, Deans never adjusted for it. Yes the players were stupid as well in continuing to play Deans game plan. Trouble was Deans never had a plan B and so the players did not know what to do. Dumb and dumber.
Bakkies
Guest
It's a basic staple of the game here. Even mini rugby teams use the tactic. One way of breaking it is support play. Attacking team has players there to drive the ball forward so use it or lose it doesn't apply. If the ball goes to go ground and doesn't come it's a collapsed maul, scrum to the defence. DOC is one of the best exponents at it for Munster. Aussie coaches Fisher aside should look at how he, POC and Donnacha Ryan operate around the park. POC can win text book turnovers. They are always messing up rucks that aussie forwards don't do often enough.
Magic Sponge
Guest
Bring back the Maul big fan of the maul and don't know why teams don't use it (apart from the fear of use it or lose it),. Alan Jones has a point, the continual use of the quick ruck s easy to defend.
Zero Gain
Guest
Agreed, no need but still fun.
moaman
Guest
Of course you can't mate---not without suppressing the personality too.
moaman
Guest
Darwin--been away so couldn't reply earlier-----I believe the NZ footy team didn't even try to win that last game--in the sense that they didn't pull out all the stops,throw the kitchen sink and caution to the wind and be prepared to lose in order to win;just my opinion of course. Creditable though a series of draws may be--they didn't get us through to the next round,did they?
robhen
Guest
Good article, great presentation.
Garth
Guest
Kiwis on (and running) both teams, both were Kiwi-built boats, still counts as a win. If it's a two-horse race and you train both of them, does it really matter which one wins?
Garth
Guest
Achieving the best result NZ has ever had at a FIFA World Cup and knocking Italy out of it in the process, let's face it they really should have kicked our butts, sounds pretty "feel good" to me.
Scott Allen
Expert
Did you miss my sarcasm Simon?
Hamish
Guest
Tongue and cheek comment mate - no need for dissection and analysis.
Kane
Guest
The old washing machine trick
allblackfan
Guest
The ABs have done this for years. Nothing new. What I found interesting in that video clip is that McCabe was held up in a choke tackle by TWO opposition players and ended up surrendering possession in a 2-on1 situation while Quade Cooper looked and waited for the ball he could clearly see was NOT going to come to him!! Dddduuhhh!! This emphasis on quick ruck clearance is a feature of Aust rugby and I wonder if it has something to do with playing on hard, dry grounds. The mail is more in vogue in countries where you really want to keep the ball off the ground (ie wet boggy conditions) or you have naturally big forwards.
Scott Allen
Expert
Thanks
Simon_Sez
Roar Guru
Scott, The Wallabies seem to be struggling more than most.
Saffer Bogun
Roar Rookie
Thats because he created gaps using power, determination and guts. Also he received balls at pace from a good 10 that drew defenders not hop-skip-no look pass. Question, did anyone watch the old games before and after rugby club? Great games we can only hope for something like that on the weekend. If you did watch the games did you notice the amount of mistakes Cooper made, he has improved greatly. :)