Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

hindle xiii

The charge down

21 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, until recently, if you attempted a charge-down on a drop-kick and got a hand to the ball, it would not count even if it went over the bar and between the posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017