Exactly, it should be a case of watching and deciding "would that defender have gotten there?" Too many of the ones chalked off recently are for defenders who had little to no chance of making a tackle on the ball carrier.

"You've got to take possession before you can pass it" - Richard Silverwood.

When did this become a rule?

I think I heard the ref say it wasn't a shoulder charge because he didn't turn in to lynch. So it was more of a chest charge.

It's not bollox. It's actually common sense. A Cas dummy runner ran ahead of the ball, therefore putting himself offside, and then interfered with play by blocking a defender's path to the ball carrier. If he'd run at the other shoulder of the Wigan defender he then wouldn't have blocked the defender's path to the ball carrier.

It's quite simple really.

It's a stupid one, the fact no further criteria is applied.

I can guarantee they'll be other situations this season when theres a blatant knock on but it fits the current ruling for a charge down, but they'll be no one on here questioning it because......it's a blatant knock on.

This. Bad decision aside that was a great half of Rugby League Football.

Great game and well deserved win for Cas. There will always be contentious decisions which could go either way. There are too many people who bleat on about referees. They will never get everything right. The TV coverage especially sky are partly to blame by focussing so much on 50/50 decisions rather than the skills of the two teams.

it is simple, it isnt obstruction. Rulings for people who know the rules but not the game.

Spot on this. If you need a slow motion replay to see if there was an 'obstruction' it will have had little or no effect on the play. I understand it is the law etc however why has it only been enforced in the last 6 weeks (according to Peacock/Wilkin on TV) and not from the start of the season?

Well yes it is. A Cas player, in front of the ball and so offside, impeded a Wigan defender from getting to the ball carrier.
If that's not obstruction then nothing is. Because that is pretty much the definition of obstruction.

If teams don't want to obstruct it's really quite simple, don't make contact with a defender and don't be in front of the ball. If that means teams have to change how they play then that's just how it is. Dummy runners are supposed to be additional options for the halfback/playmaker, not NFL style blockers.

If it's so simple why is there so much controversy surrounding it?

Correct!!! We've got to the stage where we're agonising, literally, over millimetres one way or the other. The video ref has it's uses but the majority of decisions should be made in real time by the ref in conjunction with the assistants.

The whole point of a dummy runner is to draw a defender. If the defender falls for it, more fool him. If the dummy runner runs in front of a defender who is trying to get to the ball carrier, fair enough, it's obstruction. The current interpretation will do away with dummy runners and make the game more one dimensional.

A dummy runner who is behind the ball, yes.
A dummy runner who is in front of the ball has only 1 duty. To not interfere with play.

The aspect which is most annoying is the fact that, had the game not been in front of the cameras today, all 3 of Castleford's fist half "tries" would have been given.
The micro dissection of the players' running lines, although correct within the laws of the game, just appeared wrong.
The best team won and Castleford's defence was superb.

So you acknowledge it's the law, but because you don't like it, it's stupid.

What criteria would you like? How many metres from the kicker can the charge-down be? A certain part of the body only? Should they be jumping? Eyes open or closed?



I admit it looked a bit odd today but it's been interesting to see so many people with no understanding of the charge-down law spitting their dummies.

I always thought that to perform a 'charge-down' you should, at least, be charging towards the kicker?

Standing there knocking the ball down is surely something different?

Nope. No mention of 'charging'.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/official_laws/2_glossaryCharging Down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent's kick.[/url

No mention of charging? It's the first word it mentions?

Imagine if the army shouted 'Charge' and the then just stood there.

Maybe the Charge Down should be renamed the Kick Block to truly represent the laws of the game?

The definition of the law constitutes the law itself, not what it's called.

Yeah, it's stupid.

I'd like the player to be moving towards the ball carrier either before or after the kick has been made and then a movement of the hands to try and block the kick.

You know, the type of things you expect when charging down a kick.

Today, bowen was stood on the spot and tryed to catch the ball and knocked it on.

Why, rather than acknowledge the poor criteria of the current law, are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Today was a blatant knock on, and the only reason they were able to consider it a charge down is because of the current ruling in place.

Maybe so, but in the link you used the first word is definitely 'Charging' when you said it didn't mention the word?

Except it wasn't. It was a charge down according to the letter of the law.

What you'd 'like' is irrelevant. .

Never a charge down.

The key word is "block". To me block indicates that it's moving to prevent the ball from going forward.

Bowen clearly sticks his hand to the left - that's not blocking - that's playing at the ball.

Bad, wrong decision and no matter how Wigan fans can try and spin it otherwise it was one of many. Gladly, it didn't make a modicum of difference.

Whilst I agree to a point about the difference between tv and non-tv games, I'm not so sure if all the tries would have stood. In TV games refs are deliberately allowing the game to continue because they know there is the video there to refer to. If they didn't have that backup they'd be forced to make an active decision rather than a passive one and on at least some occasions the tries would still be disallowed.