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.

Ok, that's right. So we're all clear now? Let's move on.

Then why did you ask? You asked what the criteria should be I gave my opinion.



Arguing for the sake of arguing.



Instead of actually debating the law all you've come back with is ''that's the law, it's the law, the law is this, that's the law''.



Mind numbing.

Yes, I did ask. But whatever you'd 'like' is indeed irrelevant. The law is what it is, like it or lump it.



Ok, let's look at what you'd 'like': [i"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"[/i. Ok, so let's say a defender is stood stationary in the defensive line. The ball carrier runs to him and kicks from 2 metres away. The defender puts his arms up, blocking the kick, knocking it towards the attacking team's posts. You'd call that a knock-on just because the defender isn't moving towards the ball carrier? Doesn't wash with me. The current rule is correct, even if the application of it looked a bit daft today.



I'd 'like' to see shoulder charges back in the game. It's irrelevant because they're currently illegal.

In both cases, and in the case of Sutcliffe on friday, it was as much the defender making contact with the attacker as the attacker making contact with the defender.



In no case was it a gap created by an obstruction, they were gaps created by poor defence and poor reads. Players can't just disappear, they can't not exist anymore or make themselves ghosts if the defender chooses a line which goes through them, what are they supposed to do?





Its a poor rule which is spoiling the game.

it isnt an offence to be in front of the ball.

I think bringing the video ref in was a great idea initially, to check the groundings or if someone is in touch. But now we are seeing the thing the critics have always said, which I believe has become true only recently: It completely ruins the flow of the game.



Im guessing at this figure but as a conservative guess id say over 50% of tries scored on TV games go to the video ref. Analysing every dummy runner in slow motion from every angle repeatedly. Why is it that when looking at the grounding, its benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. Yet with obstruction, a 50-50 call almost always goes in favour the defensive team.