So there's no such thing as an incorrect decision in your world? Interesting. I look forward to your support of all decisions that go against your team too in that case.

I won't hold my breath...

Whilst you may believe it was a charge down, and I do too FWIW, the simple fact is it wasn’t as it wasn’t given.

Even so, we had plenty of opportunities to put KR to bed in that game but made some bizarre attacking choices. I’m not saying you’re hanging the loss on the chargedown like some are but that’s a bit of a cop out. We had our chances and we blew them.

Mate, it wasn't RULED as a charge down by the referee on the day. That doesn't mean it wasn't one. The two things aren't interchangeable. An error of judgement doesn't magically change reality. That is saying no decision is ever incorrect which is simply not true.

If you believe that any error is made correct by the ruling at the time, how do you explain overturned convictions for example? We'd still have innocent people languishing in jail if we believed that theory. Luckily the world at large doesn't. The fact that you do still doesn't make it correct.

Mate that’s like comparing apples and tomatoes because they’re the same shape. It wasn’t a chargedown because the referee didn’t give it and that decision is irreversible. A wrongful conviction at court is reversible.

Even so, using that as an excuse - which I’m not suggesting you are by the way - is straw grabbing.

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.