taking the two

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, tec said:

Union blows that argument out of the water .

How so?

[Clogiron]

I think it depends on how good your kicker is, some teams or coaches don't seem to place the importance of having a reliable kicker high in their strategy, to my mind a team can afford to carry a good kicker on the wing because of the effort and points he can save his teammates. Such a player would be the first I would pick in a team, if a chance is on offer take it and turning four points in to six is so valuable and disheartening to the opposition. The time to run the ball at penalties is when you have built a substantial lead not in the first few minutes of a game

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

I agree with those who advocate leaving things as they are.  Let coaches (or their players on the filed) decide when to go for the two and when to go for a try.

Incidentally, I don't think anybody so far on this thread has mentioned the different numerical relationship between tries and penalties in our game and the dark side.  In union, two penalties beats a try; in league they only equal it.  So, in union, there is an inbuilt, added temptation to take the three points on offer for a penalty.

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

3 hours ago, Just Browny said:

If taking the two was the right option to the point that teams were never rewarded for going for tries, the OP would have a point.

As it is, there are only a handful of game scenarios in which taking the two makes complete sense, which is why my team constantly loses when it resorts to the tactic.

There was a significantly high probability that Wire would have come away with zero points instead of taking some points, not much threat to the Saints line in that first half, Saints have had a very strong defence and Wire knew this. The result did not hinge on taking the penalty kicks but what they did/did not do in the second half.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

No rule change; agreed.

Not quite true on the negativity.... but I get what you mean.

Taking two is not always negative, it's all about game management and playing the percentages for me.

Sinfield won many a game, especially come the business end, poor weather, championship RL with scoreboard pressure 2 points.

It's more than 2 points in such games  as the scoreboard pressure is just that; forcing teams to play expensive rugby in conditions that dont suit it just to catch up. They then often cough up the ball.

It's intrinsic to the game and good players/teams exploit it when it's right to do so. I see it as good or bad game management and no rule change needed.

It isnt always negative to take 2 points. I'm not equating that with negativity. But RL doesn't really reward negative tactics like certain other sports can. And I'm very happy with that.

[bobbruce]

4 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

There was a significantly high probability that Wire would have come away with zero points instead of taking some points, not much threat to the Saints line in that first half, Saints have had a very strong defence and Wire knew this. The result did not hinge on taking the penalty kicks but what they did/did not do in the second half.

Tapping the ball instead of taking the two is not just about the points. It’s also about keeping the pressure on the opposition and tiring them out for later in the game. Whereas taking the two gives the opposition a breather and also loses you territory. I’d certainly say I’ve played in and watch a lot of games were I was made up the other team had taken the two. 

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

14 minutes ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

I agree with those who advocate leaving things as they are.  Let coaches (or their players on the filed) decide when to go for the two and when to go for a try.

Incidentally, I don't think anybody so far on this thread has mentioned the different numerical relationship between tries and penalties in our game and the dark side.  In union, two penalties beats a try; in league they only equal it.  So, in union, there is an inbuilt, added temptation to take the three points on offer for a penalty.

There are so many relatively easy ways to get penalties in the last 1/4 of the pitch in union when on the attack, it should in some way come as no surprise that a lot of union teams play for them. With the lure of the easy penalty try from scrums which can start a landslide of penalties and yellow cards for the opposition there can be an absolutely ghastly amount of negative play. 

The sports leaders should get the DG dropped to 1 point at least and the pens to two points if they want to remove a lot of the drudgery.

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

1 minute ago, bobbruce said:

Tapping the ball instead of taking the two is not just about the points. It’s also about keeping the pressure on the opposition and tiring them out for later in the game. Whereas taking the two gives the opposition a breather and also loses you territory. I’d certainly say I’ve played in and watch a lot of games were I was made up the other team had taken the two. 

How do you know Warrington wouldn't have lost possession on the first tackle thus losing any 'pressure' they theoretically might have built and also creating more pressure on themselves for coming away with nothing ... again? How do you know that saints wouldn't have intercepted and scored a try? You simply do not know what might have happened, especially when playing against a side like Saints.

Speculate to accumulate, sure, but if it doesn't come off and you lose by the difference that you could have virtually guaranteed those points, that hurts, and we know it does happen in sport, not just RL. Decisions made when you think a game is going to be tight are always going to seem wrong, more so when you lose, given how Warrington didn't lok like breaking the saints line I thought it was the correct decision for the first two. The outright match decision was not down to those pens, it was down to Warrington failing badly to manage the game, their mistakes and what Saints did do in the second half. 

One person on here said Saints wouldn't do the same, well being behind in a tight game with no points on the board that changes your thinking/decision making, also Saints had the confidence to go for tries and made opportunities, something Warrington didn't,  Warrington made too many mistakes in that second half, Saints didn't.

Maybe on another day like the one that was referred to in the match were Warrington won by the points accumulated from penalty kicks Warrington would have won, but not when you're playing the best team in the comp and you keep making errors and inviting the opposition and the opposition do what they've been doing all season. Sure helped by at least one shocking decision but that's something Warrington nor Saints can change. 

 

[Padge]

If you don't want to make your team vulnerable to a two pointer, then don't give away kickable penalties.

If teams start losing because the other side keep scoring two pointers coaches will drill teams to not give away two pointers.

Its a percentage thing, like everything else.

[rleaguer]

if wire were playing anyone else they may have run it but I genuinely believe they didn't think they could break them down and so took anything going, for the so called second best side in the league their attack is very average at best

[overtheborder]

From a pure entertainment standpoint i'm not a fan of taking the two (i'd rather see a team go for it), but tactically i like the idea. Why not edge in front in a tight game by taking a kick, bearing in mind the reason for the kick is that you were unfairly treated within the context of the rules? I don't mind it and i don't think it's a kick fest either to be honest, with all due respect to the OP.

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

9 hours ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

There are so many relatively easy ways to get penalties in the last 1/4 of the pitch in union when on the attack, it should in some way come as no surprise that a lot of union teams play for them. With the lure of the easy penalty try from scrums which can start a landslide of penalties and yellow cards for the opposition there can be an absolutely ghastly amount of negative play. 

The sports leaders should get the DG dropped to 1 point at least and the pens to two points if they want to remove a lot of the drudgery.

I can see the logic of what you say, DR.  

If RU did what you suggest it would merely be following its own long-standing tradition, namely be aggressive, discriminatory and generally unpleasant towards RL, while adopting numerous of its features, on and off the field of play!

[ivans82]

Depends on the opposition , if it`s a must win game  , take the 2 every time .I`ve lost count of watching my Team take the tap and then lose possession 2nd or 3rd tackle afterwards and then the opposition romp down the field and score .First half especially if you are struggling to get anything going , taking the 2`s keeps you in touch until you get a foothold in the game .

[Wigan Riversider]

13 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

im on about the "edging ahead" tatics that belong on the dark side- think one option each half  until last 5 mins would keep the game flowing

Fair point about the dark side.

England failed to take 3 very kickable penalties in 2017 World Cup Final when 6-0 down. Lost 6-0.

A win was too much to ask on my 50th birthday As was taking the two...

[Rupert Prince]

14 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

cos u may as well watch ru if u want to watch stagnation of rugby

You are talking rubbish.  In my humble opinion!

Why should a foul go unpunished?  Presumably you will allow a drop goal to continue?  

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, overtheborder said:

From a pure entertainment standpoint i'm not a fan of taking the two (i'd rather see a team go for it), but tactically i like the idea. Why not edge in front in a tight game by taking a kick, bearing in mind the reason for the kick is that you were unfairly treated within the context of the rules? I don't mind it and i don't think it's a kick fest either to be honest, with all due respect to the OP.

Let's allow one player a side to be forced to have to the their shoelaces tied together.  All very entertaining.

[Kenilworth Tiger]

This thread should be renamed  "I hate Rugby Union"

[redjonn]

Don't see a need for change... but wish that sometimes a player could take a quick tap to catch the opposition out... taking a quick tap doesn't seem to be allowed... well I guess I don't know the rules but ref does seem to prevent it...

[Dunbar]

3 hours ago, redjonn said:

Don't see a need for change... but wish that sometimes a player could take a quick tap to catch the opposition out... taking a quick tap doesn't seem to be allowed... well I guess I don't know the rules but ref does seem to prevent it...

As it always seems to be these days it is not about the laws and more the interpretation that we have all decided to accept.  The laws (RLIF version) state:

"If the kicker takes a penalty kick or the subsequent free kick quickly, the opposing players may not have all retired ten metres in which case they should be penalised only if they interfere with play. These players may join in the play when any advantage which they may have gained through not retiring has been lost."

Of course the vast majority of the time now a quick tap is called back so that the game can be restarted in a more orderly fashion... no idea why the quick tap is suddenly out of favour with refs.

[Wigan Riversider]

6 hours ago, Kenilworth Tiger said:

This thread should be renamed  "I hate Rugby Union"

Rugby Yawnian will suffice

[craig hamilton]

Taking a penalty goal is sometimes essential. As previous posters have stated, when in a tight game against tough opposition, taking any points on offer is key. I personally enjoy tight games where there are only a couple of points in it. 

 

[craig hamilton]

4 hours ago, redjonn said:

Don't see a need for change... but wish that sometimes a player could take a quick tap to catch the opposition out... taking a quick tap doesn't seem to be allowed... well I guess I don't know the rules but ref does seem to prevent it...

Agree wholeheartedly. Nothing more frustrating for me than quick taps being denied. Interestingly, they are often allowed in the amateur game in our league up in Cumbria.

 

[Rhinoferg]

14 hours ago, craig hamilton said:

Agree wholeheartedly. Nothing more frustrating for me than quick taps being denied. Interestingly, they are often allowed in the amateur game in our league up in Cumbria.

 

Many moons ago, my cousin played for the local amateur team,got to a cup final. His team got a penalty in front of the sticks,they were losing by 2 with about 15 to go. He chose to do a quick tap and lost the ball going over the line. His team lost by 2 in the end! 

[RP London]

ironically the "edging ahead" can actually open the game up... at 6 points up you can grind back into the game, one try pulls you level and you can score that in the last seconds of the game, equally the team 6 ahead may take less risks as if they just defend hard and play a safe set in attack they win the game. by edging ahead to 8 then 10 then 12 ahead they can start to open up in attack knowing they have some breathing space to play with, equally the team down by 8-10-12 HAVE to play more open rugby as they need the scores quickly. 

Therefore what was a tight stagnant affair has opened up thanks to the ill discipline of one side and the "edging ahead" of the other. If they weren't taking the 2 then it may continue on being turgid for quite some time.

[overtheborder]

On 03/07/2019 at 09:43, Rupert Prince said:

Let's allow one player a side to be forced to have to the their shoelaces tied together.  All very entertaining.

With all due respect I'm not sure that's really relevant to the point I made. All I was saying was that I prefer a team to go for the try, although am definitely not advocating getting rid of the kick.