Does anybody know the exact ruling on charge downs, specifically when a player has played at the ball rather than been struck by it. The reason I ask is I'm just re-watching yesterdays game and Roby runs at Sam as he kicks it, turns and jumps, and the ball hits him on the back, yet we had to turn the ball over rather than get an extra set. I always thought that advancing on the kicker in such a way meant you had played at it, even if the ball hits your back.

eta: Strangely enough John Kear says the ref got it "exactly right" and that it was great "kick pressure". Sounds like a bit of an oxymoron.

IMO if you are running towards the kicker, even with your back turned. It should be a charge down.

it was given as a charge down earlier in the season when one of our players did it

cant remember which game but was exactly the same

If the ball just hits the opposition player it's play on. If the defender makes any attempt to play the ball or block it, it is a charge down. Roby jumped, therefore he was playing the ball. Should have been a charge down.

Should have been another 6 for mine. He was attacking the kicker, and simply turned so that he didn't get hit in the face, not to avoid the ball.

I'm seeing more clangers the more I watch. There were a few calls I questioned yesterday, now with pause and rewind Silverwood is looking like an absolute tool. Couple of minutes after the no charge down, he calls Hoffman offside without even looking in his direction. Saints just happened to have lost the ball. Followed by a horrendous PTB by Graham.

Wouldn't have been another six. We would have scored IMO. Huge decision.

to me thsi should have been given as a charge down, he clearly played for the ball by ruinning towards it then sheiilding his body to deflect the ball, the fact it hit his back shouldn't make a difference I would'nt think - he clearly played for the ball.

Then the ball ricochets off Deacon as he tackles Pryce and Silverwood reckons that one WAS played at. These are all within about 3 minutes of each other, basically setting up Saints' campsite on our line.

How about the off side against Finch / Joel following Sam's kick. Think the TJ gave it. Joel was behind Sam, Finch in front, but Finch was a good 13 or so yards off Wellens when he fielded the ball in his own in goal.

Thought the reffing was generally OK when I watched it back, yes some wrong calls were made, but it was more or less fair.

It doesn't matter anyway. Were going to Wembley.

The 'drop out' that they went to the screen for and claimed to come off Lockers came off Pryce's shoulder, yet they still gave the drop out to Saints. Then there's the no try. Very very harsh to call that as an obstruction.

What do you mean? How was there a turnover then if you went off and scored without being tackled? Have I got the wrong incident in mind?

As a neutral I must admit I thought that one was correct. There was no element at all of the defender taking the wrong man, the runner cam through at him. The attack only ever gets the benefit of the doubt when the defender has slightly changed direction and gone for the wrong man.

I think he's implying that we wouldn't have got to the 6th tackle before we scored.

The one where saints charged down and the ball went to lockers and he was going to run and give it to the wing to score. They ref stopped play and gave saints the ball.

That doesn't make sense, what did the ref blow up for if the tackle wasn't complete? It is play on at that point. I think you are talking about something different mate. Even the OP says a repeat set.

I must be talking about a different decision.

We're talking about the one where Sam kicked it, Roby charged it down then Finch (I think) fell on the loose ball, only to be called the 6th tackle.

I just wish the refs were more consistent with decisions like that. My problem at the time was that imilar situations to the Roby incident have been given as charge downs all season yet that one wasn't.

I think you're on about the one in the 2nd half when Finch's kick was charged down and Lockers caught it

Isn't that play on? I can't make up my mind on this one.

It did go both ways though some of Silverwood and Child's decision were incredible.

I think he gave obstruction against Graham for standing still after he had played the ball to Roby and the Richards penalty at the end was also baffling.

I do agree though, there were some complete clangers
(feel free to correct me on any names etc as i havent had time to watch it back yet)

Lockers was offside from the kick.

But he can't be offside if the ball comes off an opposition player unless the rule is different for a charge down.

I think in that instance the ball struck the Saints player rather than was played at so Lockers wasn't played on-side.