New rule - Charge downs

[Tommy Smith]

On the topic of rule changes, and which ideas are good or bad, i personally think that its time for charge downs to be rewarded instead of penalised.

Why should a great defensive effort result in another set of 6? Think about it. In basketball if a player blocks a shot the shot-clock doesnt restart. Nope, because that woud be stupid.

But in rugby league if a defender rushes out and manages to charge down the kick or a field goal attempt, the team kicking the ball invariably regathers it and gets another set of 6 as reward for their kicker not getting it away quick enough.

Time to change the rule. Reward the defensive team. You know i make sense. Steve Price certainly knows it makes sense.

 

[Twizzle]

yeah, its one that needs to be looked at

 

[~knights~]

yeah I've often thought that about the chargedown???

 

[Frank_Grimes]

On the topic of rule changes, and which ideas are good or bad, i personally think that its time for charge downs to be rewarded instead of penalised.

Why should a great defensive effort result in another set of 6? Think about it. In basketball if a player blocks a shot the shot-clock doesnt restart. Nope, because that woud be stupid.

But in rugby league if a defender rushes out and manages to charge down the kick or a field goal attempt, the team kicking the ball invariably regathers it and gets another set of 6 as reward for their kicker not getting it away quick enough.

Time to change the rule. Reward the defensive team. You know i make sense. Steve Price certainly knows it makes sense.

I think the change they made to allow charge-downs to not be considered knock-ons if re-gathered by the defence is sufficient. If it is such a great defensive move, the charger will end up with the ball - ala Fittler, Price and so on.

If the defence don't recover the ball after the charge-down, then it's a handling error and shouldn't be rewarded IMO.

 

[mave]

:thumn Good idea.

 

[Tommy Smith]

I think the changes they made to allow charge-downs to not be considered knock-ons if re-gathered by the defence is sufficient. If it is such a great defensive move, the charger will end up with the ball - ala Fittler, Price and so on.

If the defence don't recover the ball after the charge-down, then it's a handling error and shouldn't be rewarded IMO.

It's not easy for the bloke who charges it down to regather the ball. He's sometimes up against 4-5 opposition players who are closer to where the ball ends up after the charge down. Not only that but he's more than likely off balance and momentarily disorientated as to the balls position.

And the attacking team would still have the opportunity to regather it and kick it again if its the last tackle, or just play on if it was kicked earlier in the count.

What i hate to see however is a team march up the field with consecutive sets because they weren't efficient enough in getting the clearing kick away.

Perhaps even worse tho is that coaches would probably be telling their players in defense to NOT charge the kick down as it will more than likely result in an undeserved repeat set.

Shouldn't we be encouraging these types of desperate plays?

 

[Simo]

hmm interesting idea i hadnt really thought about.

But I think I agree with Frank Grimes. The defense doesnt get another set of 6 simply cause its charged down they get another set of 6 cause they recover the ball after a play by the opposition.

The removal of it being a knock on I agree is sufficient.

On a different note, the way the game is going they are trying to stop people going near a kicker so I doubt they will encourage them to attack the kicker more.

 

[Tommy Smith]

hmm interesting idea i hadnt really thought about.

But I think I agree with Frank Grimes. The defense doesnt get another set of 6 simply cause its charged down they get another set of 6 cause they recover the ball after a play by the opposition.

The removal of it being a knock on I agree is sufficient.

On a different note, the way the game is going they are trying to stop people going near a kicker so I doubt they will encourage them to attack the kicker more.

If you want to extend upon that, we're actually encouraging players to not tackle at all! Don't go too high it will now be a penalty for being in the vacinity of the head. Don't go too low it will allow a quick play the ball. Be carefeul if you're the second man in to not tip him even 1 degree above the horizontal.

But back onto the charge down its important to note that the defense doesnt get ANOTHER set of 6 for regathering the ball. It's not as if it would be back to back sets for them. And really im not proposing that they give the ball to the defensive team if they do charge it down.

Im merely suggesting that the attacking team shouldn't get a repeat set. Chances are they will still, more often than not, recover the ball. Its just that instead of a repeat set they will somehow have to kick it back down field instead of just falling on top of the ball and receiving another 6 tackles.

It would add alot more excitement and even up the balance between attack and defense.

 

[jabroni]

I've thought about it in the past as well, but where do you draw the line? Should a fumble also be rewarded, what about making plays for intercept passes? I think it would be too hard to distinguish between a charge down and a fumble if the defensive team were rewarded, as every player would constantly be playing at the ball, knowing they dont have anything to lose.

Imagine grubbers near the line being stopped from going through by charge downs. Grubbers would be a thing of the past, and all you would have would be high balls.

 

[alexc]

I reckon an obvious attempt at a chargedown should make it stay on 5th tackle. Would make it a whole lot more exciting. As it is now chargedowns are a stupid play because they hardly ever get regathered, you may as well hand the ball over with some ribbon around it.

 

[perverse]

why take a low percentage, but highly lucrative play and f**k with it? it's the kind of play that if you pull off - particularly under pressure, you're an absolute f**king hero. making these changes would remove that completely. the chargedown rule as it stands is fine. by making changes like this you are just encouraging the "safe footy" mentality that seems rife in certain teams at the moment. it's a high risk play for a reason.

what's next? intercept attempts don't reset the tackle count? intercepts don't count as knock ons? ffs, if the defense makes a play at the ball and the attacking team regathers, that's 6 more tackles. end of story.

 

[The Engineers Room]

There are two ideas that I could support:

1) Chargedowns don't restart the penalty count. Only when a chargedown goes into touch does it count as the non kicking team playing at the ball.
2) Chargedowns negate the play. If the kicking team regathers then is tackled it is still tackle 5. And if it goes into touch the kicking team gets the feed or the scrum.

Now if we can just fix the stripping rule.

 

[innsaneink]

I agree with Frank and perverse.
Charge downs are a low % gamble that shouldnt be an auto reward.
Crap idea.

 

[JB]

why take a low percentage, but highly lucrative play and f**k with it? it's the kind of play that if you pull off - particularly under pressure, you're an absolute f**king hero. making these changes would remove that completely. the chargedown rule as it stands is fine. by making changes like this you are just encouraging the "safe footy" mentality that seems rife in certain teams at the moment. it's a high risk play for a reason.

what's next? intercept attempts don't reset the tackle count? intercepts don't count as knock ons? ffs, if the defense makes a play at the ball and the attacking team regathers, that's 6 more tackles. end of story.

I agree. Nothing wrong with how it is at the moment. You take your chances. If it comes off - great. If it doesn't, thats footy! Leave the unpredictability in the game, it's what makes it great.

 

[Simo]

If you want to extend upon that, we're actually encouraging players to not tackle at all! Don't go too high it will now be a penalty for being in the vacinity of the head. Don't go too low it will allow a quick play the ball. Be carefeul if you're the second man in to not tip him even 1 degree above the horizontal.

But back onto the charge down its important to note that the defense doesnt get ANOTHER set of 6 for regathering the ball. It's not as if it would be back to back sets for them. And really im not proposing that they give the ball to the defensive team if they do charge it down.

Im merely suggesting that the attacking team shouldn't get a repeat set. Chances are they will still, more often than not, recover the ball. Its just that instead of a repeat set they will somehow have to kick it back down field instead of just falling on top of the ball and receiving another 6 tackles.

It would add alot more excitement and even up the balance between attack and defense.

I agree with the part in bold 100% and its one of my biggest gripes with the game, its beyond ridiculous.

I see your point and I think it has some merit. If the attack gets the balls back they must continue to play on the 5th, could keep it interesting and exciting and would certainly create more attempts at a charge down.

 

[Raider_69]

i can see both sides of the arguement
im fence sitting on this one... i think the defense should be rewarded for the charge down, but given it is a low percentage play and the defender is playing at the footy the attacking side shouldnt be disadvantaged either

perhaps in the case of a charge down, if the defending side gets the ball back after they successfully charge down a kick, play on as it is now... but if the attacking team regathers the tackle count resumes at that number tackle

so for example Team A has the footy on 5th tackle and gets their kick charged down by Team B, if Team A regather the ball and are tackled, instead of restarting the count, its now 5th tackle again for Team A. If Team B recover the ball, play on

 

[Slackboy72]

The problem is that the defensive team touching the ball restarts the tackle count. As far as I'm concerned that shouldn't be enough to restart the tackle count especially in the case of kicksthat rebound off legs and the refe has to decide wether it was deliberately played or not. Maybe you could make it the defending team has to control the ball such as holding it before you restart the tackle count? I'm sure there's flaws in that idea but it could lead to a lot more deliberate knock ons which would restart the tackle count regardless. Hang on. I'm confusing myself here.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

I reckon an obvious attempt at a chargedown should make it stay on 5th tackle. Would make it a whole lot more exciting. As it is now chargedowns are a stupid play because they hardly ever get regathered, you may as well hand the ball over with some ribbon around it.

I'll get behind that 100%.

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

Why should a charge down be the only time a team can deliberately touch the ball, fail to gain control and not give the opposition another six tackles? You're already allowed to knock the ball on when charging down a kick, why make it any more of a special situation?

 

[alien]

On the topic of rule changes, and which ideas are good or bad, i personally think that its time for charge downs to be rewarded instead of penalised.

Why should a great defensive effort result in another set of 6? Think about it. In basketball if a player blocks a shot the shot-clock doesnt restart. Nope, because that woud be stupid.

But in rugby league if a defender rushes out and manages to charge down the kick or a field goal attempt, the team kicking the ball invariably regathers it and gets another set of 6 as reward for their kicker not getting it away quick enough.

Time to change the rule. Reward the defensive team. You know i make sense. Steve Price certainly knows it makes sense.

no it doesnt make sense. its good how it is