I've said before on this subject, I follow both codes of the sport and let me tell you these exact same discussions are had across the divide every week about toughening the rules in the modern age around head shots, what is foul play, red cards, etc etc etc. A lot of fans, and even players and coaches, lament about it but this isn't going to change with all the stuff around head and brain injuries and the long term effects of playing rugby, and people need to get real and accept it.

Tackle technique has to change, and this is probably more of an issue for League (traditionally the more collision based version of the sport) than Union, but they're going to have do it. And everyone involved in the sport will have to also accept that unpopular or not this might well mean weaker, softer, more passive defence. Easier to make metres, offload and pass, and so therefore easier to score tries and points. And less of the "biff". That's the journey we're on, I don't see the direction changing.

Harsh or not, Shorrocks was far too upright, was leading more with the shoulder than an arm wrapping tackle, and managed to clout someone in the head. The players adapt, or keep getting red carded.

Mainly though I thought that loss was more about our lack of threat in attack. Yeah it was a wet day, but just one up passive runners as everyone else stood about, then give it to Smith to punt as high as he can in the air, and hope French/Field might eventually come up with some magic, is nowhere near enough. The attacking structure isn't good enough this year, and I don't actually think the biggest problem is not making metres.

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

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.