Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Rocket

Charge Down.

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by The Rocket
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you are saying, TR.  A charge-down is neither illegal nor a simple knock-on.  So you can gather the ball having charged down your opponent's kick.  Here is the extract of the laws that confirms this:

https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/rules_and_regulations/laws_of_the_game/knock_on__forward_pass

However, if you have failed to gather cleanly, or indeed at all, after charging down, then it becomes like any other scenario in which a defender has touched the ball during an opponent's set of six.  I, for one, am not persuaded that the risk of having the tackle count wiped out should be removed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you mean if you don’t regather but I guess that’s risk and reward , I don’t mind that . I really don’t understand why it’s 6 more when it touches you as you’re making a tackle , I think that’s ridiculous .... but if it goes into touch and you’re not playing at it you get the feed . And if you’re making a tackle and it touches you as it’s dislodged and you run off and score it’s a try . Seems an anomaly . It’s the same - you’re not playing at the ball !

And why oh why are officials so hot on escorting but it’s ok to run then stop in the way of an opponent ? What’s that about , you’ve still no intention to play the ball but have the sole intention of blocking an opponent . Refs say ‘ oh he was stood still it’s ok ‘ . By that logic four blokes can run then stop and form a wall infront of the fullback before he catches it 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I don`t understand why teams are penalised for the charge down and 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.

Been on about this forever.

There are 3 principle reasons why a charge down should be exempt from the back-to-one rule.

1) A charge down is good play. Good play should not be punished.

Having a kick charged down is poor play. Poor play should not be rewarded with extra possession.

2) Safety. At the moment defenders are frightened to attack the ball lest they concede extra possession, so the only way to apply kick pressure is to attack the kicker. Whether they go for the kicking leg or the standing leg, either way it`s dangerous, and often late.

3) Charge downs are exciting. The ball can ricochet anywhere. The ultimate broken field scenario, where good players and good teams can demonstrate that they`re good players and good teams by how they react. The current rule has all but erased them from the game, and it`s poorer for it.

And it`s consistent with the general logic of the rulebook where the charge down is exempt from the knock-on rule.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

And it`s consistent with the general logic of the rulebook where the charge down is exempt from the knock-on rule.

It would not be consistent at all. Every deliberate play at the ball by a defender is a set restart and if the charge down wasn't then it would be inconsistent. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Been on about this forever.

There are 3 principle reasons why a charge down should be exempt from the back-to-one rule.

1) A charge down is good play. Good play should not be punished.

Having a kick charged down is poor play. Poor play should not be rewarded with extra possession.

2) Safety. At the moment defenders are frightened to attack the ball lest they concede extra possession, so the only way to apply kick pressure is to attack the kicker. Whether they go for the kicking leg or the standing leg, either way it`s dangerous, and often late.

3) Charge downs are exciting. The ball can ricochet anywhere. The ultimate broken field scenario, where good players and good teams can demonstrate that they`re good players and good teams by how they react. The current rule has all but erased them from the game, and it`s poorer for it.

And it`s consistent with the general logic of the rulebook where the charge down is exempt from the knock-on rule.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not going to go into the for and against of whether a charge down should be six again, but I similarly agree that a successfully charged down kick should not result in six again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It would not be consistent at all. Every deliberate play at the ball by a defender is a set restart and if the charge down wasn't then it would be inconsistent. 

True . Non deliberate plays at the ball shouldn’t be a restart though . Touching the ball in mid flight is different from touching it wrapping your arms round a player to tackle him . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

I don't understand what you are saying, TR.  A charge-down is neither illegal nor a simple knock-on.  So you can gather the ball having charged down your opponent's kick.  Here is the extract of the laws that confirms this:

https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/rules_and_regulations/laws_of_the_game/knock_on__forward_pass

However, if you have failed to gather cleanly, or indeed at all, after charging down, then it becomes like any other scenario in which a defender has touched the ball during an opponent's set of six.  I, for one, am not persuaded that the risk of having the tackle count wiped out should be removed.

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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am ok with it as it is.  It is risk vs. reward. You get the chance to win the ball via a charge down, often in a good attacking position as the ball is 'in front of the now defending team. But the risk is you concede a new set.

The same as the one on one steal... get it right and you have an advantage, get it wrong and you concede more possession. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The same as the one on one steal... get it right and you have an advantage, get it wrong and you concede more possession. 

I love that rule . I don’t understand why the comms are so cold on it . We don’t have enough contests for the ball , I think it’s great 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It would not be consistent at all. Every deliberate play at the ball by a defender is a set restart and if the charge down wasn't then it would be inconsistent. 

When a player charges down a kick and the ball travels forward it`s the clearest knock-on you`ll ever see. But we make a decision to exempt the charge down from the knock-on rule. We could make the same decision to exempt the charge down from the back-to-one rule. There is the consistency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

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.

Thanks, understood.

One of the advantages of trying the charge-down is that, if successful, the player who has done so has directional momentum in his favour; he is travelling the same way as the ball now is, whilst his opponents' momentum is collectively in the opposite direction.  That will normally give you an extra second or two in which to gather the ball cleanly.

As to incentive, well, maybe it is a desperate last throw of the dice for the reason explained in your original post, so it's just a calculated risk, I suppose, a bit like the attempt at a fingertip interception of a long pass down the line of backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unapologetic pedant said:

When a player charges down a kick and the ball travels forward it`s the clearest knock-on you`ll ever see. But we make a decision to exempt the charge down from the knock-on rule. We could make the same decision to exempt the charge down from the back-to-one rule. There is the consistency.

Yes, I agree with that. But if we exempt it from a set restart, it would be the only deliberate play at the ball that didn't result in a restart. There is the inconsistency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I see what you mean if you don’t regather but I guess that’s risk and reward , I don’t mind that . I really don’t understand why it’s 6 more when it touches you as you’re making a tackle , I think that’s ridiculous .... but if it goes into touch and you’re not playing at it you get the feed . And if you’re making a tackle and it touches you as it’s dislodged and you run off and score it’s a try . Seems an anomaly . It’s the same - you’re not playing at the ball !

And why oh why are officials so hot on escorting but it’s ok to run then stop in the way of an opponent ? What’s that about , you’ve still no intention to play the ball but have the sole intention of blocking an opponent . Refs say ‘ oh he was stood still it’s ok ‘ . By that logic four blokes can run then stop and form a wall infront of the fullback before he catches it 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It would not be consistent at all. Every deliberate play at the ball by a defender is a set restart and if the charge down wasn't then it would be inconsistent. 

There are plenty of inconsistencies as it stands. Putting a foot on the touch line as you are regaining your feet after being held Is not considered in touch.

Stealing the ball with two or more in the tackle when an opponent is in the act of scoring will not be penalised.

40-20s.

Touching the corner post is not considered touch in goal when it is an object that is on or over the line.

No six again for a successful charge down would simply be another nuance of the game that on this occasion would be rewarding positive play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

That will normally give you an extra second or two in which to gather the ball cleanly

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`.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am ok with it as it is.  It is risk vs. reward. You get the chance to win the ball via a charge down, often in a good attacking position as the ball is 'in front of the now defending team. But the risk is you concede a new set.

The same as the one on one steal... get it right and you have an advantage, get it wrong and you concede more possession. 

How often do you see a charge down? The risk/reward is iniquitously skewed. Punishes good play, rewards poor play. The current rule dates from the days of unlimited tackles. If it were logically consistent with limited tackles we would see regular charge downs or attempted charge downs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

There are plenty of inconsistencies as it stands. Putting a foot on the touch line as you are regaining your feet after being held Is not considered in touch.

Stealing the ball with two or more in the tackle when an opponent is in the act of scoring will not be penalised.

40-20s.

Touching the corner post is not considered touch in goal when it is an object that is on or over the line.

No six again for a successful charge down would simply be another nuance of the game that on this occasion would be rewarding positive play.

I am merely pointing out that in a game of Rugby League, every time a defender deliberately plays at the ball and the attacking team regain possession then the tackle count is reset.  And if this didn't happen for a charge down then it would be inconsistent.  Isn't that obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the definition of playing at the ball from a kick ? Is moving towards the ball , turning your back playing at the ball . Jumping up and turning your back...Like many calls it can be subjective 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I am merely pointing out that in a game of Rugby League, every time a defender deliberately plays at the ball and the attacking team regain possession then the tackle count is reset.  And if this didn't happen for a charge down then it would be inconsistent.  Isn't that obvious?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am merely pointing out that in a game of Rugby League, every time a defender deliberately plays at the ball and the attacking team regain possession then the tackle count is reset.  And if this didn't happen for a charge down then it would be inconsistent.  Isn't that obvious?

And I simply agreed with you, yes it would be inconsistent. Much like many other aspects of the laws of our game as I presented.

Essentially what I’m getting to is, yes, it’s inconsistent. Does it have to be consistent? I don’t think it does and I am not precious that it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I agree with that. But if we exempt it from a set restart, it would be the only deliberate play at the ball that didn't result in a restart. There is the inconsistency. 

Just as it would be the only deliberate play at the ball that wasn`t called a knock-on. It`s a choice to have that anomaly.

The current rule is inconsistent in that the exemption from the knock-on rule encourages charge downs, but the failure to exempt from the back-to one rule strongly discourages them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DavidM said:

What about the definition of playing at the ball from a kick ? Is moving towards the ball , turning your back playing at the ball . Jumping up and turning your back...Like many calls it can be subjective 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand all the points being made on this thread and many (all) of them are very valid.

I am just stating a preference that I think the charge down law as it stands today gets it right.

However, I don't feel so strongly that I will argue over it so I will leave it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...