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

It's no shame to not know certain rules, lots of people enjoy the game for decades without needing to understand every intricacy. I'm good with the rules but couldn't explain a wedge or a block play. However, by now you've seen the ref award it, you've had the rule clearly explained to you by three people, quoting the policy and giving you examples. Surely you must have an inkling by now that it was correct. I'm not even saying it's a good rule, but it is the rule.

Your guys can take a lot from that performance. Would have liked to have seen what would have happened if Hill doesn't get sent off and we don't lose two players early doors to injury. Hope Currie regains his form, hate seeing players get wrecked by injury like that.

Watching the Saints game you can add the PTB to the "what's going on?" list.

At the moment it seems to be a blank cheque for teams to slow the PTB down even more, still have "good line speed" as they say and wait for the error. Throw in random penalties for not playing the ball correctly, which applies to 99% of them, and I'm not feeling it.

Salford are appalling though.

Forgot to add, what's with you guys going for 2 when you're 4 down? I've seen you do it before against Saints I think? Overly conservative tactic IMO, go for the jugular

The repetitive Austin kicks, that never came up trumps ONCE in the game, was very frustrating.... I dont think he kicked a good one all night.

also on the hill sending off... yes there was contact with the head and yes it was a clumsy tackle... BUT, he had to make a split second tackle from behind to prevent a try... his arms weren't raised above his shoulder, his was aiming down... it was just unfortunate that the player was dipping so low at the time.... it was the player moving down that made the contact with head a bad one... not a swinging head high arm....... I thought a yellow would have been enough... if the player hadn't been stretchered off, then im sure the decision wouldn't have been a red.

harsh red for me.. the ref reacted to the 'severity' of the injured player (who is fine btw) rather than looking at the actual mechanics behind the tackle.

In a nutshell.