Watching the Wigan vs Cas today.
The game is obstruction fooked!!
Ben Thaler is a prick!

What about Bowen's knock on?
Deemed a charge down!

We are fooked!!

The fooking idiots have taken over the assylum.
Every other try is being chalked off!
And the video refs are now making things up.

Luke Dorn scored a try which should not have been disallowed.
If Cas lose this game by less than 6 then the officials need to die of shame.

You don't reckon the Refereings making close games that look better for the TV cameras................

No!
Fooking idiots have decided to change things mid season.

Totally agree a fantastic match a great advert for the game BUT A prick is useful Thaler is a complete idiot and 2 great tries were ruled out because Cummins could not do his job and passed everything on to the numpty. A disgrace and the "charge down" episode will probably be shown on question of sport in future years on what happened next and no one will get it right! Glad the result wasn't affected in the end and by far the best team won.

Twas Silverwood actually.

Well done Cas!

What is the difference between a knock on and a charge down?

Charging Down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent's kick.

In this instance, as the ball was still rising from the kick when it was knocked forward by the hand (even though still relatively low to the ground), it must be deemed to be a charge down and not a knock on. Ben Thaler had no option but to deem it a charge down.

Charge downs are close contact blocks.
Bowen had plenty of time and stuck his left hand out and knocked on.
So if I am an attacker and try to chip you near the line and you stick your hands up to try and catch it and it goes forward it's not a knock on it's a charge down?
Yeah, I like that.
And yes he does have an alternative, he can use his common sense.
Clearly time and distance are factors missing from the definition.

Unless there is some proviso in the rules to deem a charge down NOT to be a charge down under certain circumstances, the video ref has no choice but to disallow the try.

If the ball is travelling in a upward direction at the point of contact, it cannot be a knock on under the present rules.

This rule is relatively simple. Whether it's right or not is another matter.

When a attacking player is playing the ball they sometimes fumble the ball & it goes backwards the referee then awards a scrum for a knock on surely this should be a penalty to the defending side as this is an incorrect play the ball offence.

Also where does it state in the rules that the player feeding the scrum can roll the ball along the ground in a backward direction towards his loose forward I thought the ball had to be fed in to the centre of the tunnel not passed directly to the loose forward.

Well it clearly isn't right, since most folk watching that thought it ludicrous, a bit like all this obstruction nonsense which brings me back to where I started.
Rules that result in decisions like that are clearly nonsense and not fit for purpose and then compounded by numpty jobsworths like Thaler, who have no common sense.
It was clearly a knock on.

Anyway armed with a rule book, let them continue to make a farce of things.

Would have though that one of the parameters of a charge down is that you should be charging.

According to the rules, it wasn't a knock on. Ben Thaler had no choice but to deem it to be a charge down.

How should the rule be written? "The player should be deemed to knock on when the ball is still moving in an upward motion from a kick if the player knocking the ball forward isn't moving towards the kicker with the intention to block the kick."

The business with all the obstruction decisions is very frustrating.

The problem here is that when a ref makes a decision in play, the decision is usually obvious for all to see. When it goes to the video ref, they get their slide rules out and make a decision strictly in accordance with the law. As these are quite often borderline, they quite often seem unfair.

Most of the time, strictly in accordance with the rules, the video ref does make the correct decision, but those decisions seem harsh.

Clubs and the RFL need to get together on this one and get it ironed out before it drives spectators nuts.

Well it's driving me nuts, and I will guarantee that it won't be allowed to carry on much longer before the refs are told to stop it and use some discretion.
That is the key to this, not slavish adherence to a rule book.
Some of these so called obstructions aren't obstructions.
Defenders are running into dummy runners deliberately to stop certain tries.
Luke Dorn's effort was a try in any other era but this constipated phase of over-zealous buffoonery.
Their interpretation of the rules is wrong in many cases.

I'd wager that they wouldn't dare do that to a touring Aussie side.
There would be hell to pay.

The trouble with allowing refs to use discretion is that they'll all have different interpretations which will frustrate us just as much because there will seem to be inconsistencies.

They have discretion with the speed of the play the balls. No two refs are alike on this, especially in our league.

S/O is right in that defenders look for the obstruction and if it goes to the video ref, it's probably going to be given. If there is no video ref, it's probably going to be allowed.

Perhaps the question the referees/video refs need to ask is, "Did the potential obstruction make any material difference to the outcome of the try being scored?"