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.

THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS OF THE GAME AND NOTES ON THE LAWS (2013)
Section 2 - Glossary
Charging Down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent’s kick.
[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/official_laws[/url

players were in front of the play the ball and is where the ball landed they were offside

If it was a charge down, surely LMS would have been played on side and hence play on. To me, the player was running at the kicker and thus intended to interfere with the flight of the ball or the ability of the opposition kicker to get his kick away and hence should be play on. We have made too many of the rules open to the refs interpretation of what the defender intended to do. The rules should not be open to this. If you are the last person the ball its before it goes into touch, whether you intended it or not, it should be a scrum to the opposition. If you knock the ball forward as you tackle an attacking player then tough, it's a knock on.

As Sam Allardyce once said about the interpretation on the on side rule in football, if a player isn't influencing play then he souldn't be on the pitch. The same thing goes for defending players in RL.

So every last tackle the attacking team run towards the side line and kick it at the defender and stand a better than 50/50 chance of getting the ball back because it's either back to one or it goes in touch and head and feed to the team that kicked it?
Cracking idea!


As for the player "running at the kicker" he was more jogging as part of the defensive line and at no point made any attempt to block the flight of the ball.
He was just stood there, he can't disappear, and as Bilko alluded to earlier what happens if the players leave the kicker alone in fear of giving Back to one and he dummies and scores.
Ridiculous theory as the prime concern has to be to allow the defender to at least attempt to make a conventional tackle without fear of being penalised for something he had no intention of doing.

So anyone who is in the way of the ball, intentional or not, can be adjudged to have charged down the ball when it hits them?

That doesn't sit right with me. My memory of the ruling is that if the defenders arms are above his head you are entitled to charge the ball down? I don't think what Ta'ai did (if he did anything at all) constitutes a charge down - he made no attempt to get the ball and any forward movement he did make is only natural of a defensive line moving up to meet the attack.

He was miles offside though.