Charge Down.

[Sports Prophet]

1 minute ago, The Rocket said:

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

That’s getting tricky. I would say it has to be a deliberate play with the hands within an approx 1m radius of the kicker. There will be plenty of circumstances to consider, but again, I agree they could be thrashed out to ensure this rule could be amended successfully.

[Sports Prophet]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

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.

Hey there we are, we got him guys, great job, woo hoo! Winners are grinners  

 

Just kidding @Dunbar, you’re ok  

[The Rocket]

1 minute ago, Sports Prophet said:

That’s getting tricky. I would say it has to be a deliberate play with the hands within an approx 1m radius of the kicker. There will be plenty of circumstances to consider, but again, I agree they could be thrashed out to ensure this rule could be amended successfully.

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.

[Sports Prophet]

25 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

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.

Look at AFL, they have no such concern with attempting a charge down. It doesn’t cause concern. I understand there may have been an example in the past that gives concern to the kickers legs, but we can’t wrap players up in cotton wool because something might go wrong, otherwise we just play touch.

Never considered this no six again for a charge down, but it’s a great suggestion.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Sports Prophet

[Dunbar]

9 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Hey there we are, we got him guys, great job, woo hoo! Winners are grinners  

 

Just kidding @Dunbar, you’re ok  

I was going to call upon my inner Scotchy and argue for the next 45 pages... then I thought nah!

[The Rocket]

1 minute ago, Sports Prophet said:

Look at AFL, they have no such concern with attempting a charge down. It doesn’t cause concern. I understand there may have been an example in the past that gives concern to the kickers legs, but we can’t wrap players up in tissues because something might go wrong, otherwise we just play touch.

Never considered this no six again for a charge down, but it’s a great suggestion.

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.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

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.

 

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.

Edited August 4, 2020 by The Rocket

[DavidM]

25 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I was going to call upon my inner Scotchy and argue for the next 45 pages... then I thought nah!

Bailed out on the ongoing discussion on skeletal tracking - forward passes to ...

Edited August 4, 2020 by DavidM

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, DavidM said:

Bailed out on the ongoing discussion on skeletal tracking - forward passes to ...

You have to pick your battles.  I will forsake the skeletal tracking on forward passes and the charge down conversations to concentrate on my life's work which is the defence of Ryan Hall's contribution to the Roosters exit sets!

I just think you can achieve more when you really focus on one goal.

[The Rocket]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

You have to pick your battles.  I will forsake the skeletal tracking on forward passes and the charge down conversations to concentrate on my life's work which is the defence of Ryan Hall's contribution to the Roosters exit sets!

I just think you can achieve more when you really focus on one goal.

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.

[unapologetic pedant]

22 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

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.

Another aspect of this is charging down attempted Drop/Field goals. This is generally towards the end of games or in golden point. If an attempt is charged down even partially, given the context, it`s the ultimate in RL excitement. 

Rarely happens because defenders are frightened to raise their arms and be deemed to have played at the ball. If they don`t regather, concede another set, that`s pretty much the game gone. Better to just move in the direction of the kicker, turn your back, and gamble that he misses.

[unapologetic pedant]

22 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Bailed out on the ongoing discussion on skeletal tracking - forward passes to ...

I`ve been in the trenches fighting Wellsy for two days solid on "skeletal tracking".

[DavidM]

3 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I`ve been in the trenches fighting Wellsy for two days solid on "skeletal tracking".

You’re doing good chief , I’m cheering you on 

[The Rocket]

3 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Another aspect of this is charging down attempted Drop/Field goals. This is generally towards the end of games or in golden point. If an attempt is charged down even partially, given the context, it`s the ultimate in RL excitement. 

Rarely happens because defenders are frightened to raise their arms and be deemed to have played at the ball. If they don`t regather, concede another set, that`s pretty much the game gone. Better to just move in the direction of the kicker, turn your back, and gamble that he misses.

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. 

[Sports Prophet]

23 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

You have to pick your battles.  I will forsake the skeletal tracking on forward passes and the charge down conversations to concentrate on my life's work which is the defence of Ryan Hall's contribution to the Roosters exit sets!

I just think you can achieve more when you really focus on one goal.

I knew you would be too weary to persevere in this one following your recent epic Ryan Hall discussion.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Sports Prophet

[Barry Badrinath]

just to say, as a warrington fan, i have nightmares about charge downs under tony smith.

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

3 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:

just to say, as a warrington fan, i have nightmares about charge downs under tony smith.

A linguistic pedant writes, "Shouldn't that be 'charges down'?"  OK, I'll go for a long walk...!

[Number 16]

5 hours ago, DavidM said:

 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 .

I guess why there's a difference is to stop players deliberately passing the ball into an opposition player and then touch. You see it in soccer with the little flick into would-be tackles to win a throw-in. 

[DavidM]

6 minutes ago, Number 16 said:

I guess why there's a difference is to stop players deliberately passing the ball into an opposition player and then touch. You see it in soccer with the little flick into would-be tackles to win a throw-in. 

I get that , that’s right . But making a tackle shouldn’t be deemed playing at it either . I’m sure we went that way in  SL for a while but it didn’t last long . It’s an anomaly that it’s automatically 6 more 

Edited August 4, 2020 by DavidM

[unapologetic pedant]

8 hours ago, The Rocket said:

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.

You`ll have to enlighten me on the "Scott Prince incident". How does it relate to players attacking the ball rather than the kicker when applying kick pressure?

In RU where attempted charge downs are standard, since there`s nothing in their rulebook to deter them, rarely is there any harm done to the kicker. In fact the charger is at greater risk of copping a Falcon. Compare this with the number of times an RL kicker gets hit late, particularly damaging if the contact is with the vulnerable standing leg.

My original argument on this was that encouraging defenders to go at the ball rather than the man is safer.

[fighting irish]

7 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I was going to call upon my inner Scotchy and argue for the next 45 pages... then I thought nah!

Where's he gone? Have you ''disappeared'' him? 

[Dunbar]

28 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Where's he gone? Have you ''disappeared'' him? 

Not me guv. I have a watertight alibi for whatever happened whenever it happened. 

[fighting irish]

Own up! You thought about it though didn't you? Lol. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by fighting irish

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

You`ll have to enlighten me on the "Scott Prince incident". How does it relate to players attacking the ball rather than the kicker when applying kick pressure?

In RU where attempted charge downs are standard, since there`s nothing in their rulebook to deter them, rarely is there any harm done to the kicker. In fact the charger is at greater risk of copping a Falcon. Compare this with the number of times an RL kicker gets hit late, particularly damaging if the contact is with the vulnerable standing leg.

My original argument on this was that encouraging defenders to go at the ball rather than the man is safer.

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.

[unapologetic pedant]

44 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

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.

So Scott Prince was the player charging down the kick rather than the kicker. How would encouraging the defender to go at the ball not the man make the defender less likely to break his own leg?