1-Great for the game to see Hull KR and Leigh in the final, a tribute to two ambitious chairmen who have invested in their team and bought into the IMG era ethos.
2-Gutting to lose but in those conditions and after a red card, the team showed a lot of guts and lost to a freakish hit and hope drop goal. Anyone expecting better from us in attack in that weather is living in cloud cuckoo land. We lacked composure but so did our opponents in a harum scarum semi final
3-Having said that, we do miss Briers clearly, it might be an idea to let an experienced coach with fresh ideas into the management team
4-Bevan French at 6 is a stopgap that needs to stop
5-It was a red card but in mitigation he hit a small man who was going to ground in the chin. The impact of Miski's was worse but to be fair, the Hull player was bounced into him by the impact from French
6-Someone reiterate to Nobby that it is "Jay" not "Jye" although I was amused by the schoolboy giggling in the commentary box when he shouted "We have a semi on our hands" Fnar.
7-On the positive side, since the league and cup double is almost impossible these days, we can really put all our eggs in the play off basket. Our next two games are against the two Wembley finalists who will likely be distracted or depleted. Let's get on a roll, Cats are the best team but anyone can beat anyone in a one off game and if we get some momentum..you never know
8-I am working on Challenge Cup final day for the second year running, so at least now I won't have to strangle my boss. (Well, not for that anyway)

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.