Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

The charge down


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,970 posts

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:25 PM

I'm not disputing this ruling nor am I confused by it but what is the origin of the charge down?

I've always seen this rule as against the grain, this allowable knock-on seems to contradict the other league rules. There doesn't seem to be any other ruling that is acceptable to dismiss under certain circumstances.

2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#2 Rugby League Wiki

Rugby League Wiki
  • Players
  • 18 posts

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:23 PM

I expect it comes from the nature of the game back at Rugby School and the methods used to defend.
Very roughly: when the ball wasn't in the middle of a huge scrum, a team could advance the ball through kicking (before running the ball towards the opposition's goal line became a more popular tactic). It was the time of marks and fair catches. Also, the only way to score was with a goal too.

As I understand it, the forward pass and knock on rules exist as a consequence of the off side rule. So maybe the charge down predates them.

Edited by Rugby League Wiki, 01 March 2013 - 09:28 PM.


#3 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,970 posts

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:26 PM

Ooo righto, cheers for that. New face, welcome. If you've been here a while, welcome anyway!

It does seem odd to me, a charge down by definition can be a knock-on, but an allowable one. There's no equivalent for offside or forward pass or what have you...

2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#4 Rugby League Wiki

Rugby League Wiki
  • Players
  • 18 posts

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:31 PM

Thanks, I've lurked for years and finally got round to registering.

I just added this above: As I understand it, the forward pass and knock on rules exist as a consequence of the off side rule. So maybe the charge down predates them.

#5 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,440 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:19 PM

Yes - I'm sure that the charge down belongs to the very earliest codes of rules.

Is it a knock on ? Does "knocking" imply some forward movement of the arms ? I've always thought with the charge down than you hold your arms steady and let the ball hit them ...... open for debate.

Anyway, I like them and I wouldn't want them to disappear.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#6 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,616 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:45 AM

To qualify as a 'charge-down' I believe the ball has to be both kicked and still rising when 'charged-down'. I'd say it's pretty brave to run at a kicker in that situation, so the reward is maybe some incentive, and a fair reward, for the defender putting his body on the line.

Edited by Bulliac, 03 March 2013 - 10:46 AM.

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#7 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,784 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:58 AM

I think the main reason is that if it was classed as a knock on then no kicks would ever be charged down as its pretty impossible to do so without propelling the ball forward. You would effectively remove it from the game altogether as not only would it be a knock on but it'd be, by implication, a deliberate knock on and therefore a penalty.
Super Clarty Git Amang It Dip Fer Dippin Owt In

#8 TheDuke

TheDuke
  • Coach
  • 1,174 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 11:02 AM

it happened at a skirlaugh game yesterday and the ref said its a knock on under the new rule

#9 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,440 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:40 PM

it happened at a skirlaugh game yesterday and the ref said its a knock on under the new rule


What new rule ? One he'd just made up ?

Jeez - I can put up with referees not seeing things but I expect them to know the laws of the game. <_<
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#10 Tonka

Tonka
  • Coach
  • 676 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:52 PM

Funnily enough I was just debating with/explaining this to the Missus this weekend, who was asking why it isn't a knock on.

I think the answer must be that you couldn't neautralise the kick otherwise because a catch is virtually impossible, and it differs from a knock on or forward pass because the charger never had posession - hence it's fair. Don't know the exact origin though.

#11 snapski

snapski
  • Coach
  • 903 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:09 PM

Alibert made it up at Wheldon Road today, gave Wigan another 6 from a charge down and they scored the winning try. Mind he gave nothing all afternoon for us. Farrell must have been trying to take Clarkes head home with him.

#12 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,970 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:19 PM

...and it differs from a knock on or forward pass because the charger never had posession - hence it's fair. Don't know the exact origin though.

Hmm, a botch intercept can is still a knock on though.

2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#13 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,107 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:22 PM

Alibert made it up at Wheldon Road today, gave Wigan another 6 from a charge down and they scored the winning try. Mind he gave nothing all afternoon for us. Farrell must have been trying to take Clarkes head home with him.

whats the error? You do get another 6 from a chargedown.

#14 Ex-Kirkholt

Ex-Kirkholt
  • Coach
  • 1,606 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:32 PM

My understanding is that :-

1 - if the kicking side retrieve the ball from a charge down, they get six more tackles.
2 - if the charging down side retrieve the ball, it is not regarded as a knock-on and they begin their set.

Is this correct ?
Looks like it wer' organised by't Pennine League

#15 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,107 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:33 PM

My understanding is that :-

1 - if the kicking side retrieve the ball from a charge down, they get six more tackles.
2 - if the charging down side retrieve the ball, it is not regarded as a knock-on and they begin their set.

Is this correct ?

yup - thats my understanding too.

#16 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,970 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:33 PM

My understanding is that :-

1 - if the kicking side retrieve the ball from a charge down, they get six more tackles.
2 - if the charging down side retrieve the ball, it is not regarded as a knock-on and they begin their set.

Is this correct ?

Yeh pretty much, or it is as much as I know.

2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#17 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 5,974 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:25 PM

Hmm, a botch intercept can is still a knock on though.


I'd say the difference there is with an intercept you ae trying to take possession of the ball. Where as with a charge down you are simply attempting to block it. At no point are you trying to catch the ball.

#18 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 5,938 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:31 PM

Alibert made it up at Wheldon Road today, gave Wigan another 6 from a charge down and they scored the winning try. Mind he gave nothing all afternoon for us. Farrell must have been trying to take Clarkes head home with him.


So, he made the correct decision there. Leaving that aside, what was the penalty count, which presumably is a decent measure of whether ten referee gave Cas anything?

#19 Tonka

Tonka
  • Coach
  • 676 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:58 PM

I'd say the difference there is with an intercept you ae trying to take possession of the ball. Where as with a charge down you are simply attempting to block it. At no point are you trying to catch the ball.


Yup, hence my point about neutralising the kick. Whereas it isn't fair to neutralise a passing move with a defensive knock down (deliberate or not).

#20 Southstander13

Southstander13
  • Coach
  • 1,249 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:34 AM

So, he made the correct decision there. Leaving that aside, what was the penalty count, which presumably is a decent measure of whether ten referee gave Cas anything?

.

When Cas beat Leeds I had Cas fans on twitter claiming that they beat 14 men and that the ref had not given Castleford anything all game, and Leeds got everything!

Turned out when I saw the stats that the penalty count was 13-13!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users