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?