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.

Hill had to go but he was in an impossible position.What was he meant to do in a millisecond, weigh up his options ? Natural instinct to attempt preventing a try but the letter of the law left the reff with no option.

I know a knock on from a charge down shame Kendall didn't

Doesn't matter whether or not it's careless or intentional nor does it matter whether or not the player is going down already. Contact with the head such as that is a red card. He doesn't bounce up off his shoulder or the ball, he hits him (with both arms) around the head.

like i said.... he was penalised for the outcome, rather than the actual tackle.... if the player doesn't stoop down so quickly, hill probably gets both arms around the ball and were talking about an amazing tackle.

its fine margins.. especially when a player is diving to the floor. .. its contact with the head, buts its unfortunate... nothing more.

eye gouging and leading with the elbow into someones throat are both worse offences for me.

If you think the knock on rule still applies to a rising ball from a kick, what do you think a charge down is?

I'll give you a clue.
I've been watching RL for 40+ years.
In all that time I've watched RL, a charge down occurs, when the "charger" is in extreme close proximity to the kicker, anything else is
a) stopping the kicked ball going a lot further
b) a genuine attempt to INTERCEPT/CATCH the ball

Now, bearing in mind, I don't watch half time or full time punditry (Jon Wells is a collosal whopper), I can only rely I what I remember from the actual coverage. The Wigan player WAS NOT in extreme close proximity (as would be seen for any normal charge down), therefore, it's either one of examples a or b, as mentioned earlier.

Now, bear in mind (again, iirc) the Wigan player handled the ball at waist height or lower, even the most one-eyed resident of Poolstock Lane must admit that it's hardly "rising", when he's a number of feet/metres away.
I hope that's cleared it up for you

lefty.... why are you even bothering?

Everyone knows it was a knock on... you wont get any change from a trolling cross-board knucklehead.

I've been watching TV for 30 years, I still couldn't tell you how it works. I think you're getting mixed up with 'not played at', which is something else entirely. If the defender is in extreme proximity to the kicker, the chances are he won't have the time to play at it. It'll whack him, not played at, tackle count continues if the kicking team get it, if the defending team pick it up then it's tackle 1. Clearly he did play at this one (all charge downs are when the ball is played at).

It's pretty rare that the highest point a kick gets to is waist height, surely it's a fair assumption that it would have continued to rise had he not stopped it with his hand/arm. So we combine played at + rising ball = charge down. Doesn't matter that it went forwards, how far away he was or where he stuck his arm.

I'm genuinely not trolling and have complimented Wire's performance in this thread. Prior to Hill going off I thought you were going to beat us. I'm just trying to explain a misunderstood rule, but I think at this point some fans are determined not to understand because it's easier to just blame the ref.