Re: HKR (CC) : Thu Jul 27, 2023 4:27 pm  

The Reaper wrote:

I don’t think that’s right. You see it all the time as well when it hits a player and goes out of play and they deem it not played at. You also see it plenty of times when someone kicks on the last and it hits someone and the ref waves play on. I think it has to be played at to constitute a charge down and I don’t think moving toward the kicker is sufficient for that. Like I said I’m not sure of the letter of the law, so maybe raising his arms is enough for that, but by my understanding you have to make a play towards the ball (not the player)

Mate, you've already admitted you don't understand the rule. If you've convinced yourself that's not a charge down, then enjoy your delusion.

Re: HKR (CC) : Thu Jul 27, 2023 4:29 pm  

Egg Chasing wrote: You sure? https://www.instagram.com/p/CvDuG2DKWWq/?hl=en Good grief! Hadn't seen that before. Just shows how people can convince themselves of anything if they want to believe it enough.

Egg Chasing wrote: You sure? https://www.instagram.com/p/CvDuG2DKWWq/?hl=en Good grief! Hadn't seen that before. Just shows how people can convince themselves of anything if they want to believe it enough.

Re: HKR (CC) : Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:40 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Mate, you've already admitted you don't understand the rule. If you've convinced yourself that's not a charge down, then enjoy your delusion.

The only delusion here is yours mate. That it wasn’t a charge down is a fact, as it wasn’t given as one.

Re: HKR (CC) : Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:57 pm  

The Reaper wrote:

The only delusion here is yours mate. That it wasn’t a charge down is a fact, as it wasn’t given as one.

thats like saying none of the tackles asiata put in against leigh were foul play.....they werent given as one

Re: HKR (CC) : Sat Jul 29, 2023 7:01 pm  

Pieman wrote:

thats like saying none of the tackles asiata put in against leigh were foul play.....they werent given as one

And the MRP didn’t either so unfortunately, yes, this is bizarrely a fact at this moment in time. Hopefully common sense will prevail and it won’t be for much longer

Re: HKR (CC) : Sat Jul 29, 2023 7:39 pm  

The Reaper wrote:

The only delusion here is yours mate. That it wasn’t a charge down is a fact, as it wasn’t given as one.

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...

Re: HKR (CC) : Sun Jul 30, 2023 9:37 am  

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.

Re: HKR (CC) : Sun Jul 30, 2023 11:18 am  

100% Warrior wrote:

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.

Re: HKR (CC) : Sun Jul 30, 2023 3:10 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

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.

Re: HKR (CC) : Sun Jul 30, 2023 3:55 pm  

100% Warrior wrote:

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.