The Rocket

I`m an Aussie and believe me from what I`ve seen of him he has definitely added to Canberra`s game. Even Bateman`s great overhead pass on the previous weekend was preceded by Williams darting back and forth across in front of the defence although he got no credit for the uncertainty that he created in the defensive line from the commentary team.

I think your initial point is significant and when looked at from the point that in no other part of the game can a player deliberately knock the ball forward and not be called a knock on. Which shows that the original rule makers either considered this a significant achievement worth rewarding or a poor kick deserving punishment. You could almost consider this as `precedent ` as in the legal sense for allowing further law changes which we are trying to formulate. So, in your post you are saying that the ref will make a case by case judgement on the spot and call either `charge down` or `knock on `. But say the play is ten metres out and on the attack, grubber goes through ,leg gets stuck out and rebounds into attacking teams hands, is that a legitimate charge down attempt? the player has deliberately blocked the ball with his leg, he would say no six again, that was a charge down. It would be a charge down at the other end of the field if he ran at the kicker jumped in the air and the ball rebounded off his legs. If the same rule doesn`t apply all over the field it won`t work. Or you are saying your grubber kick wasn`t good enough ,didn`t thread the needle, therefore no six again , play on. Might be hard to sell. If you get a chance read ` Yakstorms` post in the `Private Equity` thread, I would be interested to hear your opinion. Bedtime.

Think a blanket coverage of those mentioned above as charge downs would work best. If we start getting into distances it would start to get too difficult to administer. Therefore they are all charge downs and no six again. An area that concerns me more is down the other end of the field. Is blocking a grubber kick into the in- goal with your leg considered a charge down. And if that is technically a charge down doesn`t that then mean you could block it with your hand or arm. I don`t think the Rugby Leave loving public would tolerate this change. The scenario of team attacking the try-line, grubber kick goes in and is blocked and six-again only tends to ramp up the tension. The only way I can see to avoid this conflict is to have the rule only apply in your opponents half of the field. That is, the new rule would only applies to teams coming out of their own end. The defending team could almost block the kick in any matter and not concede six-again. This could act as an incentive for teams to get out of their own half before kicking or alternatively giving the defending team extra motivation to keep a team pinned in their half before they have a chance to kick. Once a team has crossed the half way line with the ball then the old rules apply. Could work.

I never questioned once the brilliance of the men who turned the Rugby Union `ruck` into the Rugby League `play-the-ball`. An incredible piece of lateral thinking. Was always taught that `limited tackle` was brought in to tame the 11 premiership winning Dragons side of the 50`s & 60`s. Is it possible that the idea was floated here and perhaps taken to you for approval and initial implementation. In an era where we may have `doffed our cap ` to you a little more. Please correct me if I am wrong. Don`t see much Union, but they do a lot of it in afl and don`t seem to break too many legs. Maybe a simple rule like the charge downee not being able to leave their feet , i.e. no diving ,would help prevent that collision between 110kg behemoth and tibia and fibula. As an aside, down field kicks are usually of a much lower trajectory than bombs, therefore anyone attempting to make a charge down on a down field kick would not need to be as close to the kicker to block it. However there is still the issues of bombs. I am confounded by this. My interpretation of a ` red herring ` is a false trail or something placed to mislead. Please explain what convoluted thinking went into this accusation. Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day.

https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752 I am pretty sure that the incident involved Prince`s kicking leg making contact with a player diving at the ball. In the process of the follow through. Resulting in a very ugly compound fracture. You know, like dangling lower leg at weird angle. As I said previously I thought that this suggested rule change would be very difficult to have implemented here because of that incident. I am not bringing it up to shoot my own suggestion down. However if another League took the initiative and implemented it, showing that it could be a success then it may be adopted here. Would your League have adopted 40/20, 7 tackle restart, six again, corner post rule, 20m tap for taking kick on full in goal, if the NRL hadn`t. Or do you just follow us? I`d be very interested to know what innovative rule changes have been adopted in the NH. It`s easy to mock but a bit unmanly and I can`t bring myself to play silly games. It`s a bit degrading.

Yes it would defeat the purpose of the rule change, however just like V`landy`s six again I still think it be worth experimenting with.

Scotty`s a true Prince among men/ Queensland Times. https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752. I`m not making it up, as I said, it is still talked about as what can happen when the charge down goes wrong. P.S. I have another radical idea to open up the game, wouldn`t change the structure of the game but may be a bridge too far.

And the scope for increasing that is limited if not zero, they are not going to bring back ` striking at the play the ball `. Therefore a little flexibility on this rule could bring back a sustained contest for the ball were both teams are scrambling to gather a charged down kick. I am pretty sure it was either you or one of your mates, Dunbar et. al. who said that we have to listen to the ` casual viewer ` to see what they think are the deficiencies in RL, a common refrain was monotony i.e. 5 tackles and kick.

Sorry mate I am making a hash of this , no he was the kicker. This is the sort hash that happened last night when I originally posted this idea. I`ve been ruminating on this for a while and the `Death of the scrum` thread with its posts on the monotony of RL galvanized my thoughts about what we can do to add a little variation. However the response was non-existent and after 40 views and nil comments I turned the computer off and sat there feeling a little deflated. I tried to read but couldn`t concentrate so I switched back on to discover Wiltshire`s post about the confusion surrounding my suggestion, thankfully yourself and DavidM weighed in then and got the ball rolling in what I thought was a pretty positive response. Roy Masters, you probably remember me referring to him, said what Rugby League needs is ` less technocrats and more mad scientists `. You can probably relate to that given your recent travails on ` Skeletal tracking of forward passes `.

When Prince was the next big thing at the Broncos there was an attempted charge down of a kick that he made that went terribly wrong and he suffered , look my memory is a bit vague now, I thought I recalled a really nasty break or though might have been knee, either way people still refer to it of what can happen when a charge down goes wrong. What you`re saying is perfectly legitimate and what their saying is probably due to the kamikaze style nature of some of our players who have no fear at diving right at the feet of the kicker. Players like Ron `Rambo `Gibbs didn`t care about where they dived as long as they stopped the kick.

Hadn`t considered that but dead right. I can see scenarios where teams would have charge down specialists: one to block the kick and maybe another one or two ready to dive on the ball. Therefore the team attempting the charge down would have both wingers back ready for the kick and two or three attempting the CD, this shortened defensive line may have the effect of teams running the ball on the last play and the mayhem that can sometimes occur from that scenario.

15 years in the top grade, can`t knock that, just looks a little bulked up to me and probably lacks a bit of acceleration.

UP, this for me was one of the main reasons I thought that the idea might have had merit. Another is when the game is on the line and a team is desperate to get possession, especially in a big game , that sudden turn around in momentum, i.e. from defence straight into attack 20-30 metes out, after a big set in defence holding the team with the ball deep inside their own territory and then attacking to win the game.

The afl was one of my examples where charge downs occur all the time, I just can`t bring myself to use their name if I can avoid it.

Been thinking about this for a while and those questions I had not considered but will have a think about them tomorrow on the tractor. Funny because thought protecting the kickers legs would be the biggest issue.

Pertinent questions. I think for starters the ball would have to be on an upwards trajectory.

Of course you are right, however as I said above to DavidM a common complaint against our game ( that came up in the scrum thread) was the repetitiveness of our game to casual viewers, rugby union followers throw it as us all the time. Something that can introduce a little of that rapid turnaround would only add to the game.

I don`t agree, the charge downee usually has his head down and arms raised and has no idea where the ball ricochets and does not often regather. Six again to the attacking side and if time is running out you are doubly `penalised`.

I think it was you who mentioned it in the "scrum " thread. Casual viewers to our game see repetitive back and forth (5 tackle and kick ), we might not mind that but they find it repetitive. Our sport doesn`t have that rapid back and forth of soccer, even rugby, hockey, Sports where there is continual competition for possession. The` one on one strip ` has introduced a little of that, If teams were encouraged to go for CD`s then we may have a bit more of this rapid turnaround in play which can be quite exciting.

Penalised was the wrong word. I meant the team trying to gain the ball are penalised ,in the sense, that the team kicking the ball get six more tackles. there is very little incentive to attempt the charge down.

U.P. I have been thinking about this for ages myself and in fact have about three pages of reasons why I think it`s a good idea. The only problem I can see is the danger to the kickers legs. The NRL are spooked because of the Scott Prince incident at the Broncos all those years ago. However I think it can be managed . I am going to go back and read your post now.

I don`t understand why teams are penalised by conceding six-again for the charge down when they don`t regather. Sometimes when a team is behind and only minutes to go, the only way they can get the ball in a decent attacking position is the charge down, however if they don`t pull it off they are penalised by six again to the attacking side. If the charge down was encouraged it would add another element to the game like one on one strip where the play changes direction rapidly. It could add another dimension to our game.

I thought Leigh won that debate on that other thread (through sheer attrition ) and thereby gained promotion.

Had to google that. Hedgehogs and echidnas, Brits and Aussies, cousins. Okay mate, good luck with your season restart.

I saw an echidna, creature a bit like your hedgehog, about 5 years ago. I was about 40km out of town and there it was wandering across the road. Always make me glad because If you see one it usually means there are more around.