Charge Down.

[yipyee]

I would go as far as wiping the 6 again from any contact during a set of 6. Deliberate knock on aside that is

[unapologetic pedant]

On 23/09/2020 at 09:50, The Rocket said:

Since we floated this idea all those posts ago, I have been watching the game with what we proposed in mind. 

The conclusion I came to was that though the idea has merit the added impetus the recent rule changes have created have diminished the necessity for this particular change. Maybe in the future when the excitement created by the new six-again has receded.

I did manage to find a more satisfactory definition for the `Charge Down `.;

` Blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponents kick.` RFL Rules and Regulations. Glossary of Terms.

There was a charge down on the weekend, I haven`t seen one for ages. After the player did it he almost knocked it on but didn`t, but the funny thing was all the opposition players stood around looking at the ref waiting for him to pull the play up. Before the REF seemingly a bit taken aback himself waved `play on`.

Pedant there are great ideas on these threads, but if we don`t try and promote those ideas what is the point. It`s all a bit pointless and I hate being pointless especially with something I feel passionate about, Rugby League.

 

The penultimate paragraph here reminds me of a scenario I`ve seen a number of times in recent years.

The ball goes to ground, either dropped or comes loose in the tackle, but has not gone forward. All the players stand looking at the ball, waiting for the whistle. There is no whistle. 

A player from the team who had been in possession picks up the ball and takes a few tentative steps, still looking round at the ref, wondering if it`s worth playing on. A defender equally tentatively moves towards the ball-carrier also still looking round at the ref, wondering if it`s worth making a tackle. This wary pas de deux continues for a few seconds and metres until finally the players` decide there won`t be a whistle and the ball-carrier bolts pursued by defenders. - At which point the ref blows his whistle and signals knock-on.

Before it`s suggested he was playing advantage, remember the team who had been in possession regained it, so there was no advantage to play. He clearly didn`t think the ball had been lost in a forward direction. What happens is that the ref knows it`s become orthodox to call knock-on when the ball goes to ground, even without clear evidence it went forward. The players are now accustomed to this. So when instead he plays on, it causes so much uncertainty, panic kicks in, and eventually he`s triggered into blowing the whistle as the safest option to avoid inculpation.

In a Sharks/Eels game earlier this year Blake Ferguson fumbled a pass through his hands. It didn`t go forward. Nonetheless the Cronulla coach was furious it hadn`t been called because "a 7-year-old knows that`s a knock-on". I translate that as "7-year-olds are now indoctrinated into seeing that as a knock-on by deranged people like the Cronulla coach".

Ben Ikin was the Fox League pundit for this game. He also was aghast it hadn`t been called and made a similarly crass comment. - "We don`t get many knock-backs these days". The laws of physics have not altered so this translates as "There are just as many knock-backs as before, only now they`re called knock-on by officials made paranoid by deranged Fox League pundits".

This is relevant to the charge down topic, in that it`s all consistent with a general antipathy to loose play that`s taken a grip on RL, especially in Aus.

[The Rocket]

20 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

This is relevant to the charge down topic, in that it`s all consistent with a general antipathy to loose play that`s taken a grip on RL, especially in Aus.

I have to admit that I do share that `general antipathy`. My first instinct is when I see a dropped ball, forward or backward, is `useless ba$tard` or `reserve grader `. Or I blame the bloke who threw the pass with a similar curse.

Now how long I have been doing that I don`t remember, without being able to give an exact answer I wonder whether I have become spoilt over the last 15 - 20 years with the fast free flowing League we get week in week out. To the point now that I am intolerant with any clumsiness.

Interestingly though I have no similar intolerance of a marginally forward or flat pass, in fact am much more likely to be pi$$ed off with the Ref or Touchie who interrupts my viewing.

Now with regards the Charge Down, personally I see that it should be regarded as a deliberate play that should be rewarded not punished.

Changing topics slightly, as I mentioned above, if the rule were amended and no six again rewarded, having watched the League keeping this rule change in mind, I believe we would see an all out attack on the kick very quickly as it became clear to coaches that even if you didn`t get the ball back, the kicking team would either 1) be likely trapped with the ball on the last tackle, 2) the kickers kick would be likely less accurate due to the pressure, or 3) worst case scenario you would lose possession altogether in less than ideal field position.

I dare say very quickly then we would see coaches put their kickers behind a wall of defenders or the kicker would have to simply stand a lot deeper. Either way I do now wonder whether this rule change may have greater implications than initially thought. Trial it and let`s find out.

 

 

[arcticchris]

On a related point one rule change that could simplify things a lot would be to eliminate the knock-on rule and instead adopt the touch rugby rule of ball to ground whereby any time the ball hits the ground from a pass/offload/tap back from contested high kick it results in a turnover of possession.

Means that the direction of travel of the ball is irrelevant removing some subjectiveness from refereeing. Might also tidy up the wrestle in the tackle as it would discourage uncontrolled stripping attempts where the defender is just trying to free the ball rather than take over control of the ball themselves

[unapologetic pedant]

On 23/09/2020 at 10:02, Futtocks said:

If it had been well-executed, the other side would not have regathered the ball. A well-executed charge-down should end with a change of possession. In this case, the player got it only half-right and paid the price.

The well-executed play is the charge down itself. The pertinent question is whether, at the point of the charge down, everything before it is wiped clean and thus whichever team regathers they begin on tackle 1, i.e. there is no wider context to the charge down, it exists in isolation. Such reasoning is fine in RU where possession is routinely "Won", and was also fine back in the days of unlimited tackles RL.

In modern RL though, it vitiates the naturally fair balance between the sides that`s baked into the limited possession game.

Should a team concede extra possession by dint of charging down a kick? Should a team be rewarded with extra possession by dint of having a kick charged down? If the answer is yes to both these questions, you ultimately have to regard charging down a kick as poor play, and having a kick charged down as good play. Which inverts the values of the game.

[Futtocks]

2 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The well-executed play is the charge down itself. The pertinent question is whether, at the point of the charge down, everything before it is wiped clean and thus whichever team regathers they begin on tackle 1, i.e. there is no wider context to the charge down, it exists in isolation. Such reasoning is fine in RU where possession is routinely "Won", and was also fine back in the days of unlimited tackles RL.

In modern RL though, it vitiates the naturally fair balance between the sides that`s baked into the limited possession game.

Should a team concede extra possession by dint of charging down a kick? Should a team be rewarded with extra possession by dint of having a kick charged down? If the answer is yes to both these questions, you ultimately have to regard charging down a kick as poor play, and having a kick charged down as good play. Which inverts the values of the game.

If a player charges down a kick, but the opposition gathers up the loose ball, then he deserves less than if he charges down a kick and gains possession for his own side.

A good charge-down is one that benefits your side, while a bad one benefits the opposition. A charge-down, in and of itself, is neither poor or good play, until the outcome of that passage of play (the next tackle or a score) is known. Nothing, apart from place kicks, happens in any real sort of isolation in RL.

It doesn't invert the values of the game at all. In fact, it is entirely typical of the game's values.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I have to admit that I do share that `general antipathy`. My first instinct is when I see a dropped ball, forward or backward, is `useless ba$tard` or `reserve grader `. Or I blame the bloke who threw the pass with a similar curse.

Now how long I have been doing that I don`t remember, without being able to give an exact answer I wonder whether I have become spoilt over the last 15 - 20 years with the fast free flowing League we get week in week out. To the point now that I am intolerant with any clumsiness.

Interestingly though I have no similar intolerance of a marginally forward or flat pass, in fact am much more likely to be pi$$ed off with the Ref or Touchie who interrupts my fun.

Now with regards the Charge Down, personally I see that it should be regarded as a deliberate play that should be rewarded not punished.

Changing topics slightly, as I mentioned above, if the rule were amended and no six again rewarded, having watched the League keeping this rule change in mind, I believe we would see an all out attack on the kick very quickly as it became clear to coaches that even if you didn`t get the ball back, the kicking team would either 1) be likely trapped with the ball on the last tackle, 2) the kickers kick would be likely less accurate due to the pressure, or 3) worst case scenario you would lose possession altogether in less than ideal field position.

I dare say very quickly then we would see coaches put their kickers behind a wall of defenders or the kicker would have to simply stand a lot deeper. Either way I do now wonder whether this rule change may have greater implications than initially thought. Trial it and let`s find out.

 

 

The sentiments in the first couple of paragraphs are what I pick up constantly from Aussie RL. I would recommend you look at some old footage of great teams, players and games that you revere. What you`re likely to notice is that a lot of the good play and dramatic moments are off-the-cuff and opportunistic, where the opportunity came not from perfectly executed set patterns, but accidentally via a loose ball, pass which goes to ground, or some other unplanned deviation from rigid structures.

Of course, if the rule were changed, kickers would have to improve. So they should. At the moment they have undeserved time and space to pick their spot. Which means their kicks aren`t really that good, however well-placed.

I also suspect they currently don`t stand deeper because they`re happy to risk a charge down. For them it`s a roll of the dice which most times will cost the opposition more, since even if it`s 50/50 who regathers, the difference between tackle 1 and tackle 7 is huge. Repeat sets are killers in modern RL.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

19 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

If a player charges down a kick, but the opposition gathers up the loose ball, then he deserves less than if he charges down a kick and gains possession for his own side.

A good charge-down is one that benefits your side, while a bad one benefits the opposition. A charge-down, in and of itself, is neither poor or good play, until the outcome of that passage of play (the next tackle or a score) is known. Nothing, apart from place kicks, happens in any real sort of isolation in RL.

It doesn't invert the values of the game at all. In fact, it is entirely typical of the game's values.

If a player races out of marker or the defensive line, gets to the kicker in time, and charges down the kick, that is intrinsically merit-worthy. It`s perplexing that you think it`s neither good nor bad. Equally perplexing if you also assess having a kick charged down with the same neutrality.

Sadly for me, the law is on your side. Since the current risk/reward calibration is so out of kilter with the limited possession game (and the fact that charge downs are hardly ever attempted ought to tell you that it is), a debate over the intrinsic merits of the charge down is almost academic.

[Futtocks]

55 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If a player races out of marker or the defensive line, gets to the kicker in time, and charges down the kick, that is intrinsically merit-worthy. It`s perplexing that you think it`s neither good nor bad. Equally perplexing if you also assess having a kick charged down with the same neutrality.

Sadly for me, the law is on your side. Since the current risk/reward calibration is so out of kilter with the limited possession game (and the fact that charge downs are hardly ever attempted ought to tell you that it is), a debate over the intrinsic merits of the charge down is almost academic.

If a player races out of marker or the defensive line, gets to the kicker in time, charges down the kick, but then gives the opposition six more tackles against you, that's not good. Not in any way.

As I said before, if a charge-down can give an advantage to your side, that's good. Not neutral, but good. If it gives the advantage to the other side, that's bad. Not neutral, but bad. As I also said before, it is not an action that happens in isolation, any more than a pass, a run or a kick in play.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Futtocks said:

If a player races out of marker or the defensive line, gets to the kicker in time, charges down the kick, but then gives the opposition six more tackles against you, that's not good. Not in any way.

As I said before, if a charge-down can give an advantage to your side, that's good. Not neutral, but good. If it gives the advantage to the other side, that's bad. Not neutral, but bad. As I also said before, it is not an action that happens in isolation, any more than a pass, a run or a kick in play.

When I say that a charge down has intrinsic merit I`m referring to the physical act of accomplishing it. Just as there`s intrinsic merit in beating several defenders and touching down. If instead of having 4 points awarded, a player who beat several defenders and touched down had 4 points deducted, by your logic there would cease to be any merit in beating several defenders and touching down.

The above example is admittedly a reductio ad absurdum. However, historically it`s not that far-fetched since originally in Rugby no points were awarded for tries. Only goals were considered worthy. So administrators changed the rules to reflect, and give impetus to, a change in the perception of merit.

"but then gives the opposition six more tackles against you" - It`s the current rule that does this, not some natural force of nature. If the rule is changed, six more tackles will not be conceded. 

In the days of unlimited tackles if a kick were charged down on tackle 8, all that mattered was which team regathered. If it were the kicking team, whether we called the next play tackle 9 or tackle 1 was neither here nor there. Hence, the quality of a charge down was measured only by which team claimed the loose ball. You are applying the same value system to the limited possession game. It`s over half a century out of date.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

Charge down on a drop goal attempt could be considered different. It's an attempt to score and the defence should have a legitimate way of defending it without conceding possession again. Charge down from general play seems a little reckless and I'm ok with it being six again. It's risk reward at that point but preventing a points scoring opportunity should be allowed and rewarded if successful.

[The Rocket]

On 25/09/2020 at 02:39, arcticchris said:

On a related point one rule change that could simplify things a lot would be to eliminate the knock-on rule and instead adopt the touch rugby rule of ball to ground whereby any time the ball hits the ground from a pass/offload/tap back from contested high kick it results in a turnover of possession.

Means that the direction of travel of the ball is irrelevant removing some subjectiveness from refereeing. Might also tidy up the wrestle in the tackle as it would discourage uncontrolled stripping attempts where the defender is just trying to free the ball rather than take over control of the ball themselves

Don`t think it would happen mate, there would be too many stoppages in play. I can see your point though with regards the subjectiveness of whether a dropped ball was a knock on or not.

With regards the strip, you are suggesting the person making the strip has to maintain control of the ball, so it really becomes a steal, if you strip the ball and it hits the ground the ball goes back to the attacking team with six again. I can see the advantages in that it would discouraged indiscriminate raking at the ball in the tackle. For me the issue always is we need to encourage the offload, offloads and chain passing make the game far more exciting. Players who like to offload will often carry the ball a bit more `loosely`, some in one hand, what you are saying would mean players would be less likely to attempt to knock or rip the ball out of their hands with out actually trying to maintain control of it. Thereby encouraging passing and offloads. As I said I like offloads.

The devil is always in the detail with these things, like how many more stoppages in play, how many more disputed calls and other unintended consequences, these things can only be determined by trialing them. It is interesting though.

We are lucky that we follow a code where they do tinker with the rules and intervene if it is heading in a direction, like the wrestle had, that is making it less enjoyable to the spectator and probably player as well. I know that a survey of NRL players was overwhelmingly in favour of the new `6-again` rule.

 

[Futtocks]

8 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

Charge down on a drop goal attempt could be considered different. It's an attempt to score and the defence should have a legitimate way of defending it without conceding possession again. Charge down from general play seems a little reckless and I'm ok with it being six again. It's risk reward at that point but preventing a points scoring opportunity should be allowed and rewarded if successful.

I'd be fine with that.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

3 hours ago, Futtocks said:

I'd be fine with that.

I'll let you know when I've got it through

[unapologetic pedant]

On 26/09/2020 at 05:15, Tex Evans Thigh said:

Charge down on a drop goal attempt could be considered different. It's an attempt to score and the defence should have a legitimate way of defending it without conceding possession again. Charge down from general play seems a little reckless and I'm ok with it being six again. It's risk reward at that point but preventing a points scoring opportunity should be allowed and rewarded if successful.

A Kick in general play can be "an attempt to score" four times as many points as a drop-goal, on what logical grounds should a defence be deprived of a "legitimate way of defending it without conceding possession again"?

And in what way is charging down a kick in general play "reckless" - Inherently, or simply because the current rule carries a heavy penalty if you don`t regather?

I watched the Illawarra women`s final yesterday. There was a big call when a player trying to apply kick pressure was penalised for what the ref considered a late hit. All she did was move towards the kicker, keeping her arms low to avoid giving the impression of playing at the ball, then couldn`t halt her momentum, and slightly bumped into the kicker knocking her off balance.

We`re moving to a point where causing any inconvenience to the kicker will be too risky. Go at the ball and you can concede a repeat set, go at the kicker and you can concede a penalty. We might as well formally introduce a rule which requires defenders to give 10m space to a player kicking the football. So a kick becomes a perfunctory exercise, no prospect of any deviation from the routine. No variety.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

7 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

A Kick in general play can be "an attempt to score" four times as many points as a drop-goal, on what logical grounds should a defence be deprived of a "legitimate way of defending it without conceding possession again"?

And in what way is charging down a kick in general play "reckless" - Inherently, or simply because the current rule carries a heavy penalty if you don`t regather?

I watched the Illawarra women`s final yesterday. There was a big call when a player trying to apply kick pressure was penalised for what the ref considered a late hit. All she did was move towards the kicker, keeping her arms low to avoid giving the impression of playing at the ball, then couldn`t halt her momentum, and slightly bumped into the kicker knocking her off balance.

We`re moving to a point where causing any inconvenience to the kicker will be too risky. Go at the ball and you can concede a repeat set, go at the kicker and you can concede a penalty. We might as well formally introduce a rule which requires defenders to give 10m space to a player kicking the football. So a kick becomes a perfunctory exercise, no prospect of any deviation from the routine. No variety.

You don’t get points just for the kick like you do with a drop goal. The defence has plenty of opportunity to defend an attacking kick and is still allowed to pressure the kicker so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

It is fairly reckless to throw yourself at a kicker hoping the ball will hit you and go in some random direction. There is no control, it’s a gamble. To me, that shouldn’t be rewarded with special rules that reward the defender. I’d like to see more quality attacking kicks, not big idiots diving at people’s legs, but that’s just me, you obviously prefer something else.

[unapologetic pedant]

46 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

You don’t get points just for the kick like you do with a drop goal. The defence has plenty of opportunity to defend an attacking kick and is still allowed to pressure the kicker so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

It is fairly reckless to throw yourself at a kicker hoping the ball will hit you and go in some random direction. There is no control, it’s a gamble. To me, that shouldn’t be rewarded with special rules that reward the defender. I’d like to see more quality attacking kicks, not big idiots diving at people’s legs, but that’s just me, you obviously prefer something else.

Defenders are only allowed to pressure the kicker without the risk of a damaging repeat set, by appearing not to play at the ball or making a tackle on the kicker.

I`m specifically arguing for a rule change to encourage players to play at the ball not the man, i.e. to not "throw yourself at the kicker" and to not have "big idiots diving at people`s legs".

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

You don’t get points just for the kick like you do with a drop goal. The defence has plenty of opportunity to defend an attacking kick and is still allowed to pressure the kicker so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

I suppose another point here is Tex,  you don`t automatically get points for a drop goal either , only if it goes between the posts. Up to going between the posts it`s just another kick just like a bomb. Therefore if you changed the rule for the drop kick why wouldn`t you change it for the bomb. They are both attacking kicks , like Pedant said, one your going for one point the other four.

[Dunbar]

So, for those arguing that a charge down should not be a tackle restart because it is intrinsically a merit-worthy play, would the same not be said for a player knocking down a pass? Potentially stopping a try is intrinsically merit-worthy and therefore should not be punished with a tackle reset.

What about a player stealing a ball one on one and the opposition regathering.  Should this be a tackle reset as attempting to win the ball is intrinsically merit-worthy.

What about a player sticking out a leg to stop a grubber?  If the kicking team get the ball back should that be a tackle reset? After all stopping the ball from reaching your own goal line is intrinsically merit-worthy. 

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, Dunbar said:

So, for those arguing that a charge down should not be a tackle restart because it is intrinsically a merit-worthy play, would the same not be said for a player knocking down a pass? Potentially stopping a try is intrinsically merit-worthy and therefore should not be punished with a tackle reset.

What about a player stealing a ball one on one and the opposition regathering.  Should this be a tackle reset as attempting to win the ball is intrinsically merit-worthy.

What about a player sticking out a leg to stop a grubber?  If the kicking team get the ball back should that be a tackle reset? After all stopping the ball from reaching your own goal line is intrinsically merit-worthy. 

All this brings us back to the exemption from the knock-on rule that is made, and always has been made, for a charge down.

Why did the rule-makers decide on that anomaly? Because they regarded charge downs as intrinsically meritorious, wanted to encourage them, and knew it was prohibitively difficult to prevent a charge down going forward. Hence, they could either have the knock-on rule cover charge downs and see them disappear from the game, or create an exemption.

Your three examples are of merit-worthy plays which remain common in the game. There is therefore no similar pragmatic argument for changing the rules in relation to them. Although in the case of your third example, if sticking a leg out to stop a grubber were not such an instinctive act, if it required the same pre-meditation as a charge down, that too would have become seldom-seen. Players often do stop and put their arms in the air to indicate no play at a low-trajectory kick.

One question Dunbar. Purely out of curiosity. On the rare occasions you see a charge down are you inwardly affronted that a knock-on is not called? Because by the remorseless logic of all your points, it ought to be.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

8 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I suppose another point here is Tex,  you don`t automatically get points for a drop goal either , only if it goes between the posts. Up to going between the posts it`s just another kick just like a bomb. Therefore if you changed the rule for the drop kick why wouldn`t you change it for the bomb. They are both attacking kicks , like Pedant said, one your going for one point the other four.

It's not though is it, it's a drop kick, a completely different type of kick to a bomb. Literally no one uses drop kicks in general play unless they are going for a drop goal. There is no way for defences to prevent a drop goal than charging the drop kick down.

An attacking kick attempting to score a try offers the defence plenty of opportunity to stop it. They are completely different situations other than trying to score and are completely different skills in terms of the kick.

I mean frankly, I don't really care. It's another rule change discussion, we're obsessed with them.

 

[Dunbar]

10 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

One question Dunbar. Purely out of curiosity. On the rare occasions you see a charge down are you inwardly affronted that a knock-on is not called? Because by the remorseless logic of all your points, it ought to be.

No, I am not affronted at all... inwardly or otherwise.

As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I am very happy with the way the charge down is defined in the law book today.  It is a play that can have significant rewards... i.e. a defending team gaining possession of the ball in a very favourable field position; or it can have negative consequences... i.e. conceding another set of tackles.

I think this balance of risk and reward is exactly right as it stands.

When it comes to tackles restarts, I think our sport has it very well defined.  A deliberate play at the ball by a defending team concedes a new set of tackles if the attacking team regathers (an attempted ball steal, a charge down, a foot stuck out to deflect a kick etc) while a ball striking a defender who did not attempt to play at it is not called.

I am perfectly happy for people to have another preference - i.e. that a charge down should not result in a set restart to encourage the play.  That is fine, just state it as a preference instead of trying to justify with some kind of philosophical argument on the merits of the play.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

No, I am not affronted at all... inwardly or otherwise.

As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I am very happy with the way the charge down is defined in the law book today.  It is a play that can have significant rewards... i.e. a defending team gaining possession of the ball in a very favourable field position; or it can have negative consequences... i.e. conceding another set of tackles.

I think this balance of risk and reward is exactly right as it stands.

When it comes to tackles restarts, I think our sport has it very well defined.  A deliberate play at the ball by a defending team concedes a new set of tackles if the attacking team regathers (an attempted ball steal, a charge down, a foot stuck out to deflect a kick etc) while a ball striking a defender who did not attempt to play at it is not called.

I am perfectly happy for people to have another preference - i.e. that a charge down should not result in a set restart to encourage the play.  That is fine, just state it as a preference instead of trying to justify with some kind of philosophical argument on the merits of the play.

I`m as content as you with the current risk/reward balance across all other areas. I just make a pragmatic exception for the charge down, for precisely the same reasons it has always been exempt from the knock-on rule.

If the game were unlimited possession none of this would matter, as it doesn`t in RU. But when the structure of the game is so rooted in limited possession, anything that disturbs that balance should be under the microscope, since it can redefine what constitutes merit. A charge down in unlimited tackles RL was almost always a good play, the reverse is true in limited tackles RL.

The above is because the consequences of which team takes possession after a charge down are not 50/50. The team who have just defended a set stand to lose far more by having to defend another. This is nowhere near offset by a possible gain in territory.

If you don`t want to see charge downs, if you`re happy that they`re now rarely attempted, your position makes sense. And that is indeed a difference in preference from me. But it`s not a "philosophical argument" to think that the unpredictable, broken-field, excitement they produce is good for the game.

I think I can "justify" the principle that a charge down has more intrinsic merit than sticking a leg or an arm out, or even ripping the ball in the tackle. Particularly in the era of a 10m offside line. However the burden of my case is pragmatic.

[The Rocket]

On 29/09/2020 at 00:08, unapologetic pedant said:

I`m as content as you with the current risk/reward balance across all other areas. I just make a pragmatic exception for the charge down, for precisely the same reasons it has always been exempt from the knock-on rule.

 

 

On 29/09/2020 at 00:08, unapologetic pedant said:

The above is because the consequences of which team takes possession after a charge down are not 50/50. The team who have just defended a set stand to lose far more by having to defend another. This is nowhere near offset by a possible gain in territory.

If you don`t want to see charge downs, if you`re happy that they`re now rarely attempted, your position makes sense. And that is indeed a difference in preference from me. But it`s not a "philosophical argument" to think that the unpredictable, broken-field, excitement they produce is good for the game.

I think I can "justify" the principle that a charge down has more intrinsic merit than sticking a leg or an arm out, or even ripping the ball in the tackle. Particularly in the era of a 10m offside line. However the burden of my case is pragmatic.

There has been four charge downs over the weekend that have just about covered every scenario that has been envisaged on this thread. I reckon  if you added it up there would not have been four charge downs total in the previous two months. What`s going on !! Here`s a summation of three of them:

Charge Down #1:  Josh Dugan for Cronulla Sharks charges down kick which ricochets off in awkward angle and some distance leading to him being unable to regather. Six again Raiders .Dugan was the only Shark pursuing the ball, given the angle the ball ricocheted another teammate working in concert with him may have got that loose ball.

Charge Down #2:  Shaun Lane charges down Melbourne kick and the ball is gathered by Parramatta teammate, play on, Parra gain ball in good attacking position go down field and score. Crucial point here was that Lane was not acting alone.

Charge Down #3:  Possibly the most interesting of all, James Fisher-Harris of the Penrith Panthers  deliberately charges at the kicker but not in your traditional Charge Down manner, i.e. no arms raised. Ball ricochets off him about 8 metres upfield and is regathered by a Roosters player, Ref rules charge down six again. Play on. Penrith Captain immediately calls Captains Challenge arguing that it was not a deliberate charge down attempted by Fisher-Harris, despite it being clearly an attempt by to block the kick. Video ref rules in favour of Penrith, last tackle Roosters, hand over. 

Now from what has been discussed on these pages, we are heading into murky territory with this ruling. there was absolutely no question that Fisher-Harris was attempting to block the kick, however given the manner in which he did it, it was not adjudicated to be a charge down. Now am I going to far too far to suggest that Ivan Cleary  has had a close look at the rules to look for this loop hole, and the fact that he has put his toughest hombre on this mission knowing that he was about to bear the full brunt of the punt to some part of his body. As Austin Powers would say ; "Is the Charge Down back baby?"

 

[unapologetic pedant]

12 hours ago, The Rocket said:

 

There has been four charge downs over the weekend that have just about covered every scenario that has been envisaged on this thread. I reckon  if you added it up there would not have been four charge downs total in the previous two months. What`s going on !! Here`s a summation of three of them:

Charge Down #1:  Josh Dugan for Cronulla Sharks charges down kick which ricochets off in awkward angle and some distance leading to him being unable to regather. Six again Raiders .Dugan was the only Shark pursuing the ball, given the angle the ball ricocheted another teammate working in concert with him may have got that loose ball.

Charge Down #2:  Shaun Lane charges down Melbourne kick and the ball is gathered by Parramatta teammate, play on, Parra gain ball in good attacking position go down field and score. Crucial point here was that Lane was not acting alone.

Charge Down #3:  Possibly the most interesting of all, James Fisher-Harris of the Penrith Panthers  deliberately charges at the kicker but not in your traditional Charge Down manner, i.e. no arms raised. Ball ricochets off him about 8 metres upfield and is regathered by a Roosters player, Ref rules charge down six again. Play on. Penrith Captain immediately calls Captains Challenge arguing that it was not a deliberate charge down attempted by Fisher-Harris, despite it being clearly an attempt by to block the kick. Video ref rules in favour of Penrith, last tackle Roosters, hand over. 

Now from what has been discussed on these pages, we are heading into murky territory with this ruling. there was absolutely no question that Fisher-Harris was attempting to block the kick, however given the manner in which he did it, it was not adjudicated to be a charge down. Now am I going to far too far to suggest that Ivan Cleary  has had a close look at the rules to look for this loop hole, and the fact that he has put his toughest hombre on this mission knowing that he was about to bear the full brunt of the punt to some part of his body. As Austin Powers would say ; "Is the Charge Down back baby?"

 

I`m going to be under suspicion of owning shares in "Saint 1", because I`m in accord with his interpretations again. I think I might be at variance with him though on the rule itself. Haven`t seen it explicitly stated, but implicitly he appears to be of the Dunbar/Futtocks school of thought.

Your #1 is a perfect example of why the rule should be changed, and why the charge down will not be coming back until the fear of conceding a repeat set is removed. Players clearly want to try it, want to make the effort to produce a big play, but the current rule punishes their endeavour. On the "Once bitten, twice shy" maxim, a player who made the attempt and conceded decisive extra possession, will not repeat their crime.

Your #3, illustrates a point I made before that causing any inconvenience to the kicker is increasingly seen as malfeasance. -  How dare you disturb the kicker`s comfort, you wicked defender, six-again, that`ll teach you. In most RL games, with no captain`s challenge and video ref, such decisions to penalise kick-pressure are dispiritingly de rigueur.

In the Panthers/Roosters game you might also have seen the way a defender moved towards Nathan Cleary`s late field-goal shot. He didn`t raise his arms - too risky. That`s where we`re really at, standard kick-pressure is just an attempt to get in the kicker`s eyeline. The vital part of the movement is to avoid appearing to play at the ball.