Taking the 2 Points from Penalties

[bob dylan]

Some facts

Round 11 - Refuse the shot in the 38th minute vs Eels when leading 10-12. Result lose 22-20.

Round 13 - Take the 2 vs Warriors in 44th minute when leading 24-0. Result win 44-12

Round 15 - Refuse the shot in 55th minute vs Cowboys when leading 14-12. Result Lose 28-26.

Can anyone explain the logic or theory in not taking the 2 points in games that we know are going down to the wire?

Who makes these decisions, the coach or the captain or do the ladies in the canteen have a quick show of hands? Whoever it is they need to be relieved of their duties.

I understand 6 or 4 is better than 2. I also know 2 is better 0. Without Tom on the field our chances of scoring from set plays against side higher than us on the ladder have been diminished dramatically.

Both last night and vs Parra taking the 2 would of pushed us out to a 4 point lead, which is more than handy against a good side. It negates a try if the opposition scores next, and in the unlikely event we get down field again and get another penalty we could again take the 2 and go 6 in front. Amazing.

I also know that taking the two can change the who game, but against Parra it was right on half time and the Qld captain blew our chances of completing the set on the second tackle.

As for the taking of the 2 vs Warriors when leading 24-0 immediately after half time could be the strangest of all 3 decisions mentioned above. It proves we have no plan nor thinking capacity on field to make a rational decision.

This has cost us 4 competition points in the past few weeks and will cost us at seasons end. It is something that can be addressed immediately, unlike most of our other issues like the lack of a quality centre and prop/second rower.

I might add the inability to contest the ball from any sort or kick is plain embarrassing - it will get worse as other sides are now targetting us at every opportunity.

 

[XV-1]

Why has not taking the two points cost us the game? We lost both games by two points. Even if nothing changed in the game, whuch is unlikely we still are not winning the match.

All very well in hindsight to say this.

Garrick missing key goals in pressure games against Parra and last night is more of an issue imo.

 

[The Who]

I agree about the short drop-outs and re-starts. We are poor at catching them. We need to work on getting better at both receiving and delivering them. Mind you, not having Turbo available for these short kick-offs/drop-outs is a big factor.

 

[bob dylan]

Why has not taking the two points cost us the game? We lost both games by two points. Even if nothing changed in the game, whuch is unlikely we still are not winning the match.

All very well in hindsight to say this.

Garrick missing key goals in pressure games against Parra and last night is more of an issue imo.

Correction - It cost us the opportunity to win the games.

Check the game day threads or ask my neighbors - I was calling for this at the time. Its plain stupidty refusing points in close games. No hindsight here.

 

[Yaz Eagle]

Against top teams take whatever points are easy to take as they may come in handy in close games. It’s the coaches box that sends the message down.

 

[Snake]

Some facts

Round 11 - Refuse the shot in the 38th minute vs Eels when leading 10-12. Result lose 22-20.

Round 13 - Take the 2 vs Warriors in 44th minute when leading 24-0. Result win 44-12

Round 15 - Refuse the shot in 55th minute vs Cowboys when leading 14-12. Result Lose 28-26.

Can anyone explain the logic or theory in not taking the 2 points in games that we know are going down to the wire?

Who makes these decisions, the coach or the captain or do the ladies in the canteen have a quick show of hands? Whoever it is they need to be relieved of their duties.

I understand 6 or 4 is better than 2. I also know 2 is better 0. Without Tom on the field our chances of scoring from set plays against side higher than us on the ladder have been diminished dramatically.

Both last night and vs Parra taking the 2 would of pushed us out to a 4 point lead, which is more than handy against a good side. It negates a try if the opposition scores next, and in the unlikely event we get down field again and get another penalty we could again take the 2 and go 6 in front. Amazing.

I also know that taking the two can change the who game, but against Parra it was right on half time and the Qld captain blew our chances of completing the set on the second tackle.

As for the taking of the 2 vs Warriors when leading 24-0 immediately after half time could be the strangest of all 3 decisions mentioned above. It proves we have no plan nor thinking capacity on field to make a rational decision.

This has cost us 4 competition points in the past few weeks and will cost us at seasons end. It is something that can be addressed immediately, unlike most of our other issues like the lack of a quality centre and prop/second rower.

I might add the inability to contest the ball from any sort or kick is plain embarrassing - it will get worse as other sides are now targetting us at every opportunity.

I like the idea of accumulating points when they’re on offer but with the 6 again rule, it’s rare to get a second or third opportunity to accumulate the equivalent of a try.

When you have the opposition pegged on their own line and your already up by 2, it makes sense to push for a try because the opposition could score and covert and you’re down anyway.

It’s also a momentum killer to start the next set from your own line. Defending a try line is the hardest task in RL, so it helps to gas the opposition by making them work hard in D.

Also, we often lose by two because Garrick misses the conversion from a try, rather than refusing the penalty goal.

 

[bob dylan]

I like the idea of accumulating points when they’re on offer but with the 6 again rule, it’s rare to get a second or third opportunity to accumulate the equivalent of a try.

When you have the opposition pegged on their own line and your already up by 2, it makes sense to push for a try because the opposition could score and covert and you’re down anyway.

It’s also a momentum killer to start the next set from your own line. Defending a try line is the hardest task in RL, so it helps to gas the opposition by making them work hard in D.

Also, we often lose by two because Garrick misses the conversion from a try, rather than refusing the penalty goal.

Hardly a momentum killer in the 38th minute vs Parra.

 

[Snake]

Hardly a momentum killer in the 38th minute vs Parra.

There’s always exceptions to rule and I guess that’s what interesting about the argument you raise...there are so many different contexts where a hard and fast rule will not apply. I saw Canberra take the two when they had Parra on toast, to go by 4....a couple of minutes later, the Eels scored in the corner, kicked the goal and led for the remainder of the match. A mate of mine goes for the Raiders and said the decision cost them the game...

I’m not saying you’re wrong and it’s an interesting debate...but personally, I think a team should weigh up the variables on each occasion, rather than have a blanket rule.

 

[MissKate]

You take the guaranteed 2 and then hope to get the ball back and try to score a try/hopefully add 6. Not taking the 2 for a team like us at the moment smacks of arrogance, we fluff it 9 times out of 10. We haven’t really earned the privilege of not taking the 2 at the moment and end up with nothing

 

[court83]

It’s easy in hindsight to say we didn’t take the 2 last night and it went down to the wire and cost us.. but it didn’t .. it really, really didn’t..

We were leading by 14 points with 7 minutes to go…
That’s more than 2 converted try’s…
The fact that we absolutely blew it and shot ourselves in the foot multiple times to allow them to score 3 tries in the last 7 minutes to steal the game is a manly mental problem… it has nothing to do with not taking the shots at goal…
Blowing a 14 point lead in 7 minutes is 150% on manly and nothing else

 

[Budgie]

Some facts

Round 11 - Refuse the shot in the 38th minute vs Eels when leading 10-12. Result lose 22-20.

Round 13 - Take the 2 vs Warriors in 44th minute when leading 24-0. Result win 44-12

Round 15 - Refuse the shot in 55th minute vs Cowboys when leading 14-12. Result Lose 28-26.

Can anyone explain the logic or theory in not taking the 2 points in games that we know are going down to the wire?

Who makes these decisions, the coach or the captain or do the ladies in the canteen have a quick show of hands? Whoever it is they need to be relieved of their duties.

Agree with you Bob EXCEPT the ladies in the canteen would take the 2 every time. You know it.

 

[HK_Eagle]

Agree with you Bob EXCEPT the ladies in the canteen would take the 2 every time. You know it.

The canteen ladies know 1 in the hand’s worth a couple in the bush.

 

[Rocky]

We would have lost the Cowboys game and Parra game regardless. It's just the way it was scripted.

If the final scores were 6 -4 or something like that I may take more notice of not taking two points.

Re the Parra game we had a one man advantage and they decided that was enough reason to go for the try.

Re the Cowboys game - There is logic in not taking two points when you are 14-12 in front with 25 minutes to go because a successful penalty can be nullified straight away with one scoring play by the other team. If you are 6 ahead, or even 12 ahead then a successful penalty is viewed to be more important because it means the other team need another try to beat you.

I'm not dirty on the team for not taking either penalty goal early in the game in reasonably high scoring games. And lets not sleep on the fact Garrick missed a heap of conversion kicks in both games.

 

[JenEagle]

Yeah I’ve found our decisions this year to be very frustrating. We are a good side but not a very smart side. So many penalties earlier in the year. We seem to have got better in that dept lately. Then the keppie and Lawton send offs. That cost us games. Then last night we should have been smart enough to win. We are actually a top 4 to top 6 side but our lack of game management will probably see us miss the 8.

 

[StuBoot]

Garrick missing key goals in pressure games against Parra and last night is more of an issue imo.

All the more reason to take the 2.
Garrick is a 75-80% kicker so it's not as if he's a bum.
I've always been an advocate of taking the 2 when they're on offer as you never know when you might need them.

 

[bob dylan]

I’m not saying you’re wrong and it’s an interesting debate...but personally, I think a team should weigh up the variables on each occasion, rather than have a blanket rule.

Id prefer to treat it like blackjack, always sit on 17. Make a decision and live with it. But hey that's just me.

Its interesting how Bennett coached teams in recent years have always taken in the two in the first half of a match.

 

[Snake]

Id prefer to treat it like blackjack, always sit on 17. Make a decision and live with it. But hey that's just me.

Its interesting how Bennett coached teams in recent years have always taken in the two in the first half of a match.

Yeah I remember Saints won a heap of games doing it back when they were successful under Bennett.

If it wasn’t for the 6 again rule, I like the idea because you can get the equivalent of a converted try across the course of the match almost every game...it’s rare that teams don’t give away multiple penalties on their own line.

But now that they are rarely ever penalties, you might only get the one opportunity.

 

[Spartan Eagle]

For me taking the 2 points against the warriors when we were 24-0 up was one of the strangest decisions ever. If you can't back yourself with that many points in the lead to finish off the game you shouldn't be playing in this competition. Instead of putting them to the sword, the momentum shifted and allowed the warriors to get back into the game.

 

[bob dylan]

For me taking the 2 points against the warriors when we were 24-0 up was one of the strangest decisions ever. If you can't back yourself with that many points in the lead to finish off the game you shouldn't be playing in this competition. Instead of putting them to the sword, the momentum shifted and allowed the warriors to get back into the game.

It was the most bizarre decision of the 3.

 

[BOZO]

The taking the 2 points perspective

At the end of the night we were not good enough to win with 26 points

and were out scored by 5 tries to four