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.