Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

PENALTIES AT GOAL


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Phil Loxton

Phil Loxton
  • Coach
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 12 March 2010 - 07:53 PM

Do fans think,like me that shots at goal from penalties are going out of fashion? The fear of losing the territory gained after such a kick could be remedied by making the side that infringed drop out under the post whether the penalty was successful or not thus giving the ball back to the attacking side in reasonable territorial position.
On Thursday had Batley kicked at goal during the first half they would not have needed such a big mountain to climb later in the game and may have well even pipped Halifax.Its always a big gamble to try for the six points and sometimes its well worth it.What do other fans think?

#2 K.Loxton

K.Loxton
  • Coach
  • 1,386 posts

Posted 12 March 2010 - 08:03 PM

QUOTE (Phil Loxton @ Mar 12 2010, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Do fans think,like me that shots at goal from penalties are going out of fashion? The fear of losing the territory gained after such a kick could be remedied by making the side that infringed drop out under the post whether the penalty was successful or not thus giving the ball back to the attacking side in reasonable territorial position.
On Thursday had Batley kicked at goal during the first half they would not have needed such a big mountain to climb later in the game and may have well even pipped Halifax.Its always a big gamble to try for the six points and sometimes its well worth it.What do other fans think?

In a close game I'd go for 2 everytime...... If we'd took 2 when we had chance in the Sheffield game we'd still be in the NRC!
No matter what the result, always a true Fev fan.
"COME ON LADS MAKE US PROUD"

#3 Weeman88

Weeman88
  • Players
  • 88 posts

Posted 12 March 2010 - 08:10 PM

Half of the time it would be common sense to take the two in a close game like the Sheffield game, but who makes the decision? I believe the captain is on the field to make decisions like these but these days in our game its the coach who makes the choice. What do others think on decision making?

#4 Tex Evans Thigh

Tex Evans Thigh
  • Coach
  • 1,682 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 11:46 AM

Surely by encouraging kicks at goal we are just becoming rugby onion!!! Why would we want to do that, I cant think of a worse rule change.

Now my lad, just sit and think of the excitement you get from a penalty and the excitement you get from a try. We should be encouraging attacking rugby not the boring win a penalty and kick goal ######.

I would usually run the ball and keep field position. We did this against Batley and although we didnt score on that set we scored on the next one. RL is about pressure you immediately put yourself under pressure by kicking a goal and having to return from your own quarter as seen numerous times last season esp v Fax.
Formerly Alistair Boyd-Meaney

fifty thousand Poouunds from Keighley...weve had im gid."

Posted Image
MIPM Project Management and Business Solutions "
Discounts available for forum members contact me for details

#5 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,363 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 12:14 PM

It depends, dunnit? Im with Tex in that most of the time, running the ball and going for the six points/a repeat set is the best call. Somerimes taking the two is seen as a sign of weakness from the attacking team who don't fancy their cahnces of a try.

Of course though, if the score is tight, the two points could make all the difference.

I heard one SL coach say that although in principle he always has the decision on a kick it/run it penalty he also understood being occasionally over ruled by his players out on the field who had a better 'feel' for what the best option would be.

 

You Can't Buy Team Spirit

 

 

 

 


#6 John63

John63
  • Coach
  • 124 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 01:39 PM

QUOTE (Tex Evans Thigh @ Mar 13 2010, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Surely by encouraging kicks at goal we are just becoming rugby onion!!! Why would we want to do that, I cant think of a worse rule change.

Now my lad, just sit and think of the excitement you get from a penalty and the excitement you get from a try. We should be encouraging attacking rugby not the boring win a penalty and kick goal ######.

I would usually run the ball and keep field position. We did this against Batley and although we didnt score on that set we scored on the next one. RL is about pressure you immediately put yourself under pressure by kicking a goal and having to return from your own quarter as seen numerous times last season esp v Fax.

And get knocked out of a tournament i.e Sheffield b@gger the excitement. Give me a win anyday.

#7 Phil Loxton

Phil Loxton
  • Coach
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 01:44 PM

QUOTE (Tex Evans Thigh @ Mar 13 2010, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Surely by encouraging kicks at goal we are just becoming rugby onion!!! Why would we want to do that, I cant think of a worse rule change.

Now my lad, just sit and think of the excitement you get from a penalty and the excitement you get from a try. We should be encouraging attacking rugby not the boring win a penalty and kick goal ######.

I would usually run the ball and keep field position. We did this against Batley and although we didnt score on that set we scored on the next one. RL is about pressure you immediately put yourself under pressure by kicking a goal and having to return from your own quarter as seen numerous times last season esp v Fax.

Now my son thats just my point. You kick the ball then get the ball back in reasonable territory and the excitement continues with the two points in the bag. Opposition well and truly punished.

#8 Tex Evans Thigh

Tex Evans Thigh
  • Coach
  • 1,682 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 07:03 PM

QUOTE
Now my son thats just my point. You kick the ball then get the ball back in reasonable territory and the excitement continues with the two points in the bag. Opposition well and truly punished.


Thats a fair point however do you think that the infringements that give away a penalty are worth a potential 8 point turn around? I think penalties themselves are too harsh to be honest - does holding down or offside warrant 40m territory or 2 points? Id say not. Maybe the type of penalty could be penalised differently e.g foul play could be more seriously punished.

I like the tactical decision that is required around a penalty at the moment as it creates talking points and differentiates how teams play. As I explained Id go for the possession most of the time unless it was the back end of a tight game.
Formerly Alistair Boyd-Meaney

fifty thousand Poouunds from Keighley...weve had im gid."

Posted Image
MIPM Project Management and Business Solutions "
Discounts available for forum members contact me for details

#9 George Zip

George Zip
  • Coach
  • 123 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 08:50 PM

QUOTE (John63 @ Mar 13 2010, 01:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And get knocked out of a tournament i.e Sheffield b@gger the excitement. Give me a win anyday.


During the Sheffield game one of our tries came from the set-of-six directly after we ran a kickable penalty. We missed the convert, but if we'd have kicked the penalty, we'd have lost by 2 rather than drew.

I agree with TET that most of the time, a team should run, and keep the pressure on, except when in the sort of scenario of being 1 or 2 points behind with ten minutes to go.

Whether it's coach or players who make the decision, and regardless of score/how long is left, the decision should be made based on one principle: do what the opposition least want you to do.

#10 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,487 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 08:53 PM

QUOTE (Tex Evans Thigh @ Mar 13 2010, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Surely by encouraging kicks at goal we are just becoming rugby onion!!! Why would we want to do that, I cant think of a worse rule change.


Agree with TET. Why on earth would we want to encourage kicks at goal ? huh.gif
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#11 Andrew Vause

Andrew Vause
  • Coach
  • 2,297 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 09:01 PM

QUOTE (Tex Evans Thigh @ Mar 13 2010, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Surely by encouraging kicks at goal we are just becoming rugby onion!!! Why would we want to do that, I cant think of a worse rule change.

Now my lad, just sit and think of the excitement you get from a penalty and the excitement you get from a try. We should be encouraging attacking rugby not the boring win a penalty and kick goal ######.

I would usually run the ball and keep field position. We did this against Batley and although we didnt score on that set we scored on the next one. RL is about pressure you immediately put yourself under pressure by kicking a goal and having to return from your own quarter as seen numerous times last season esp v Fax.


It depends if you need it to win the game. I bet you wouldn't have run the last one in '83' dry.gif .

#12 John63

John63
  • Coach
  • 124 posts

Posted 14 March 2010 - 08:23 AM

QUOTE (Griff @ Mar 13 2010, 08:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Agree with TET. Why on earth would we want to encourage kicks at goal ? huh.gif

Because sometimes they win you games and sometimes they get you a bonus point. I know,why not do away with the penalty kick at goal. What a farce that would be.

#13 oldrover

oldrover
  • Coach
  • 5,962 posts

Posted 14 March 2010 - 08:38 AM

QUOTE (John63 @ Mar 14 2010, 08:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Because sometimes they win you games and sometimes they get you a bonus point. I know,why not do away with the penalty kick at goal. What a farce that would be.


that's right, if there's too much kicking in the game, then the first thing to go should be the ridiculous 40/20. a good defensive stint in your opponents 20 could be all for nought with just one kick, and not only do you lose ground, you lose possession as well. when the rfl run out of silly new rules, here's one for them. why not have a penalty spot in front of the goal, ala football, and all penalty kicks to be taken from there, regardless of where the offence took place. stupid i know, which is why we shouldn't rule it out.

Edited by oldrover, 14 March 2010 - 08:39 AM.

joe mullaney is a god
the only good tiger is a stuffed tiger

Posted Image

#14 John63

John63
  • Coach
  • 124 posts

Posted 14 March 2010 - 08:41 AM

QUOTE (Andrew Vause @ Mar 13 2010, 09:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It depends if you need it to win the game. I bet you wouldn't have run the last one in '83' dry.gif .

Yes Andrew and if my memory serves me right we were 12-5 down in that final and opted to go for goal instead of running it and set the game up for a draw after Quinn booted it over. Then we got our just rewards.

#15 John63

John63
  • Coach
  • 124 posts

Posted 14 March 2010 - 08:46 AM

QUOTE (oldrover @ Mar 14 2010, 08:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
that's right, if there's too much kicking in the game, then the first thing to go should be the ridiculous 40/20. a good defensive stint in your opponents 20 could be all for nought with just one kick, and not only do you lose ground, you lose possession as well. when the rfl run out of silly new rules, here's one for them. why not have a penalty spot in front of the goal, ala football, and all penalty kicks to be taken from there, regardless of where the offence took place. stupid i know, which is why we shouldn't rule it out.

Great stuff Oldrover we could also have the added benefit by letting the fullback stand on the crossbar to try and deflect it. What entertainment but as you say keep it from the rfl or that could be trialed in our league lol.

#16 oldrover

oldrover
  • Coach
  • 5,962 posts

Posted 14 March 2010 - 08:52 AM

QUOTE (John63 @ Mar 14 2010, 08:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Great stuff Oldrover we could also have the added benefit by letting the fullback stand on the crossbar to try and deflect it. What entertainment but as you say keep it from the rfl or that could be trialed in our league lol.


we'd be ok. we could just stand Grayshon in front of the sticks.
joe mullaney is a god
the only good tiger is a stuffed tiger

Posted Image

#17 Paul Hewes

Paul Hewes
  • Coach
  • 167 posts

Posted 14 March 2010 - 12:02 PM

QUOTE (Tex Evans Thigh @ Mar 13 2010, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thats a fair point however do you think that the infringements that give away a penalty are worth a potential 8 point turn around? I think penalties themselves are too harsh to be honest - does holding down or offside warrant 40m territory or 2 points? Id say not. Maybe the type of penalty could be penalised differently e.g foul play could be more seriously punished.

I like the tactical decision that is required around a penalty at the moment as it creates talking points and differentiates how teams play. As I explained Id go for the possession most of the time unless it was the back end of a tight game.



For technical infringements like holding down, interference or offside I would much prefer the referee to be allowed to wipe the tackle count clean and the count start from zero. This would allow the game to flow more and reduce the kicks at goals by taking that option out of the equation. Maybe if teams were having to defend 10, 14, 18 tackles on the spin because of stupid delaying tactics it may have an effect on their style of play.

#18 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,111 posts

Posted 14 March 2010 - 04:07 PM

QUOTE (K.Loxton @ Mar 12 2010, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In a close game I'd go for 2 everytime...... If we'd took 2 when we had chance in the Sheffield game we'd still be in the NRC!

yes every time.

#19 Andrew Vause

Andrew Vause
  • Coach
  • 2,297 posts

Posted 14 March 2010 - 06:25 PM

QUOTE (John63 @ Mar 14 2010, 08:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes Andrew and if my memory serves me right we were 12-5 down in that final and opted to go for goal instead of running it and set the game up for a draw after Quinn booted it over. Then we got our just rewards.

Indeed so my friend, I suppose in those days th penalty was greater reward as it was 2/3 rds a try whereas now it is only worth 1/2 a try.

I remember a couple of years ago Dewsbury played in the league at our place. It was the last play of the game, they were 14 behind and were given a penalty in front of our sticks at the railway end. They chose to run and the hooter went on third play. A risky six would have had the same outcome as an easy two. It depends on the circumstances. We all love to see the team running a pen but sometimes it is the wrong decision.


#20 Phil Loxton

Phil Loxton
  • Coach
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 14 March 2010 - 06:30 PM

QUOTE (Andrew Vause @ Mar 14 2010, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Indeed so my friend, I suppose in those days th penalty was greater reward as it was 2/3 rds a try whereas now it is only worth 1/2 a try.

I remember a couple of years ago Dewsbury played in the league at our place. It was the last play of the game, they were 14 behind and were given a penalty in front of our sticks at the railway end. They chose to run and the hooter went on third play. A risky six would have had the same outcome as an easy two. It depends on the circumstances. We all love to see the team running a pen but sometimes it is the wrong decision.
This thread has really split fans opinions and that is what is great about our game. Some groan when a conversion is missed and the same fans moan if we go for goal at a penalty.....priceless!!!!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users