Apparently according to the rules the charge down was the correct decision. As long as the ball is rising you can play at the ball on purpose and it would count as a charge down.

In theory as long as the ball is rising from a kick, you can deliberately punch/push the ball forward and a team mate can run onto it and score. I never knew that, but they clarified that last night.

We have an issue with penalties for ball steals. The J Clark one after the chargedown, Philbin was caught with one, as was Gelling. These were the right decisions, but once you have a reputation for having hands on the ball, the 50/50’s (Like when D Clark was given as a knock on) tend to go against you.

Same with Hill. While it was a bad tackle, it was high and is a red card, I wonder if it was Matty Ashton for example who made the tackle, would it be judged slightly more leniently, given Hill’s previous as a grub.

I was withholding comment till I'd seen it on TV (I was sat at the other end of the pitch). I've just seen it back, it's a charge down, doesn't matter at all whether he's trying to catch it or charge it down, as long as the ball is rising. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of the rules going around. Here's some scenarios and outcomes which will hopefully help.

A - Ball kicked into a defender who doesn't play at it (not what happened here) - Tackle count continues if attacking team get the ball back. Defending team can pick it up and play from tackle 1 if they get it.

B - (what happened here) - Ball kicked, defender tries to catch it or charge it down whilst it's still rising - Tackle 1 to whoever picks it up.

C - Ball kicked, defender knocks it forwards when it's coming back down (not what happened here) - Scrum to the attack if the defending team get the ball. Attacking team can pick it up and play from tackle 0 if they get it.

He didn’t try and catch it, he didn’t charge it down, he stuck his hand out to the side and it went forward off his hand, that was a knock on.

Laughable charge down decision. He grabs at the ball. Its literally no different to King earlier in the match sticking his hand out when Isa tried to put his centre away. Charge down is just hilarious. It was a desperate attempt to stop the ball going by him. He wasn't charging anything!

To the letter of the law, any part of the body hitting the ball when its rising off an opponents foot is a charge down. Not saying i agree with it. In fact its pretty daft, but it is the rule. https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/ru ... y_of_terms "Charging Down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent's kick"

To the letter of the law, any part of the body hitting the ball when its rising off an opponents foot is a charge down. Not saying i agree with it. In fact its pretty daft, but it is the rule. https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/ru ... y_of_terms "Charging Down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent's kick"

Great defensive from the 12 and 11, but we need to be more savvy with ball in hand near our opponents line. Some nice offloads and support play, which is encouraging after 2019. Chris Hill owe's us a big performance after that 22 minutes worth.

Agreed


No, it's a charge down. Doesn't matter where he sticks his hand, which direction the ball goes, or what he was trying to do. When you play at a ball rising from a kick, it's automatically a charge down. You can't knock on in that situation, but you risk giving the kicking team another set of 6 if they get to it first. Whichever team picks the ball up plays on from tackle 1.

Well if that is the correct interpretation of the chargedown rule, and assuming it hasn't changed lately, then a lot, and I mean [ia lot[/i of charge downs have been incorrectly deemed knock ons for, oh I don't know a century or so.

As for ball strips. Whatever. It's a lottery, but some teams to have more of the winning numbers than others.

Obvious you haven't a clue about the rules..

That's 2 that thought Kendall got it right...your rugby knowledge is on a par with my jack russell

We lost, last night. I get it.
A sinbinning and a sending off scuppered that, BUT, a huge reason for our loss, was our lack of ideas, 10M in. Don't get me wrong, I love Austin in a Wire shirt, but he's an [ioff the cuff[/i player. Not a creator. Likewise Rarchford. This will (hopefully) change with Widdop.

The bringing up of a "charge down" and then a strip as an excuse, seems a little desperate. Our defeat was our own fault. But, Kendal's "decision making" was frustrating. If the rule about a charge down involves a rising ball, then his interpretation is more baffling than some of the VAR decisions we're seeing in football. Likewise the clamping down of a foot actually being used in the PTB..
Stains were just penalised for this. Two mins later, Salford had a set of six, not once did a foot come into contact with the ball, and only twice was some kind of attempt made.

RL referees. About as much use as a perforated condom