Quote ="apollosghost"One game for Sorrocks https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... vjNc4M4npo'" That's as close to an admission of the ref getting it wrong as they could make, IMO. They were never going to give "No case to answer" or "Sending off sufficient", as that would, effectively, have been an admission that Moore got it completely wrong. If it was genuine shoulder to the head, it should have been 2-4 games minimum. So for me, this is them admitting Moore was wrong, without giving anyone any recourse to have a go at him directly.

Quote ="apollosghost"One game for Sorrocks https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... vjNc4M4npo'" That's as close to an admission of the ref getting it wrong as they could make, IMO. They were never going to give "No case to answer" or "Sending off sufficient", as that would, effectively, have been an admission that Moore got it completely wrong. If it was genuine shoulder to the head, it should have been 2-4 games minimum. So for me, this is them admitting Moore was wrong, without giving anyone any recourse to have a go at him directly.

The death penalty isn't reversible. Doesn't mean that they don't get them wrong as history clearly shows.

Anyway, aren't you being a bit hypocritical here? If you believe that whether something is irreversible is the defining factor on whether something is right or wrong, why are you even on a forum discussing things you can't change? When you say "the coaching staff got X or Y wrong" (sic), they defacto can't have done as it's irreversible.

The fact that it was RULED as not a charge down doesn't preclude it from being the wrong decision. The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

Again, comparing apples and tomatoes here. The irony is we both agree and disagree at the same time

Only in your opinion mate. Given that no two examples can be, by definition, exactly the same I reckon they stand comparison. There are enough similarities to show principle. I would similarly argue that your points of difference are purely pedantic rather than having any real insight. It's all a matter of opinion.

I think we agree that it was a charge down as you've already said as much

Fair enough

The rules:

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

Phuzzy is correct.