Honestly couldn't have given a monkeys about last nights result but immediately the "Charge down" happened and most of the commentators (and cummins iirc) said it was a charge down I couldn't quite get it out of my head.
Had a sneaky peak on Saints board and noticed a lot of referral to this charge down that it cost them the game and it was a bad decision.

Now I'm not going to say that I know the rule inside out but what I can't quite get my head round is this.

At no point did the defender raise his arms, jump or anything else in fact to try and "charge down" the ball. It just hit him on the head.
All he did was come up with the defensive line, so what is he supposed to do?
I've seen a couple of mentions that the defender is advancing towards the kicker, well I would have thought that's exactly what you want him to do to "Tackle" him.
What happens if he doesn't kick it? Is the defender supposed to stand still?

So as I said, not sure what the rule is, but if it is that if your advancing towards the player (so I'm not going to say kicker as how do you know that he deffo is going to kick it) then it is classed as a charge down then I'm against it.
Surely the defender should have to be interpreted as making an attempt to charge down the ball from a kick not just advancing towards the player?
Anyway, won't lose any sleep, just thought I'd bring it up.
Edit

Oh and yes, it is mentioned on other boards that players were "downtown" at the ptb.

Just had another thought, what about players kicking the ball near the touchline, hitting the defender and it going out. Surely head and feed to the attacker based on the "charge down" rule?
Defender is advancing towards kicker so it's a charge down even though all he could be doing is attempting a tackle?
Clarification needed guys as I think it's very dangerous (or stupid) if the rule is that the defender only needs to be advancing to attacker for it to be classed as a charge down.

I didn't see the incident but yes there should be some attempt to charge the ball down. Was he more upright than you would be if you were trying to effect a tackle?

By the strictest definition of a charge down it probably wasn't one, however it comes down to whether the Huddersfield player made a play at the ball it whether it hit him. Silverwood concluded it just hit him. I'm not sure but it want as clear cut as some are making out.

Looked the correct decision. There were players attempting to charge it down but the person it actually hit wasn't one of them.

He was running towards someone who was attempting a drop goal. So how can he not play at it?

Irrelevant anyway as the guy it hit was well offside.

And what Is he supposed to do? Run away from him?
The point I was making was that he made no "Attempt" to block the kick by doing anything other than go to towards the kicker as part of the defensive line.
He didn't Fly out of the line
He didn't raise his hands
He didn't jump

What happens if an attacking player kicks a ball at a defender who is tackling him near the sideline?
He's running towards someone kicking the ball so should that be back to one or head and feed to kicking team?
Surely not?

My point is more to do with the general ruling of this area of the game.
Surely the defender must be allowed to approach the kicker otherwise no-one could tackle him without running the risk of giving back to one if it hits him?
He also must surely have to make an attempt block the kick doing something other than be approaching him?

So I think you'll find it relevant as I am asking with regards to the issue not just the specific incident.

I think Silverwood didn't call the charge down and gave offside because he was in the way of the hudds defence and was clearly obstructing a defender, if he'd allowed play on then LMS would have scored and that would have been too controversial , so i think he tried to get himself out of hot water

Silverwood says on Twitter he's entitled to go forward in case he dummies and runs but the question is whether he played at it. Silverwood says (without seeing replays) he didn't and I think he's right. Player had his arms down and wasn't charging towards the ball. He was just in D line and ball hit him.

And I would agree with Silverwoods interpretation and it was he correct call.
But
A/ what is the rule?
B/ if As I suspect, the defender has to make attempt to play at the ball and he is entitled to go forward and tackle him without the risk of a back to one then where's this rubbish about "advancing towards the kicker" being a charge down come from? Is it as usual Eddie and Stevo BS that a lot of fans then believe is a rule?

I tried to check the charge down rule after the cup QF where a Wigan player (Bowen I think) stuck his arm out at a ball that was kicked through by Sneyd. Many people thought it was a knock on (including the commentary team on the Beeb) but both refs seemed to agree that it was a charge down because the "ball was rising."

Couldn't find anything definitive in the rules of the game on the RFL website, but I reckon a charge down is seen as a deliberate play at a ball kicked by the opposition which is still rising, and would normally be deemed a knock on.

The other rule that annoyed me when I watched it back was the one about the video ref not being allowed to check on anything until the ball has cleared the play the ball. So if there is a clear knock on as there was on Thursday the video ref can't rule on it. I agree with not using the VR for forward passes because it's much more subjective and the different camera angles don't help, but the play the ball one doesn't make any sense IMO.

I saw the 2 minute highlights on Friday, and there you can quite clearly hear Bentham calling out 'he caught it' before the ball goes through the hands across the field.