Options - you're 7 or 8 points behind with only 6 minutes left and you get a kickable penalty

[Number 16]

Watching the finish of tonight's Hull / Wakefield game got me musing upon the options available when two scores down with time running out.

Wakefield were seven points behind with only a handful of minutes left on the clock when they were awarded a penalty by the sticks. They opted to run the ball and chance scoring a possible six point haul rather than go for the easy two (so, okay Tanginoa crossed on this occasion, but more often than not, teams don't), but whichever they choose they still need to score again.

 

I struggle with the logic of choosing to run rather than kick. To me, surely it's preferable to bag the two and receive again from the kick off, which means you have to find only one try in the remaining minutes.

 

To run means you still need to find two scores in nigh on the same time, minus a minute or so for the restart.

 

Needing two scores with, say, five to go, often mean more frantic and less controlled rugby by the chasing team, which may bring a bit of excitement, but can create a fumble-a-thon. 

 

As I say, it's not something I think is logical.

 

Thoughts?

[bobbruce]

I’d take the two unless I thought the defense was shot. 

[Clogiron]

Go for the two every time.

[Kayakman]

I agree with Bob on this one...take the points unless the defence is falling apart....getting within one score with little time remaining is critical....it gives you a chance.  Another penalty could pop up for another easy 2...or a try.  If you are more than a converted try out it doesn't matter to you which end the points come from...getting within one score needs to be the prime directive in all scenarios.

[GUBRATS]

A couple of years back Leigh playing Toronto at the LSV , about 8/9 minutes left they'd given a deliberate penalty to stop play , we were 7 behind , as was screaming to take the two , we'd have then been chasing the win , not the draw 

[GUBRATS]

Similarily back in 2015 we were playing Leeds at Headingley in the cup , we were leading by 6 with 10 minutes to go , we were within drop goal range , all it needed was Penky at the PTB to slot I've a one pointer and we'd have been 2 scores in front 

Instead we ran the ball and lost it chasing a try , Leeds came all the way down the pitch and drew level , and then scored again to take the win 

I truly believe if we'd gone 2 scores up we'd have won , Leeds would have had to change their attitude and would most likely had made mistakes pushing too hard , but Paul Rowley never believed in drop goals citing it gave the opposition a mental lift , as in showing a lack of confidence , and yet he scored a crucial drop goal for Leigh 11 years earlier , in the 2004 NL1 GF , Whitehaven had been leading Leigh till the 79 th minute until Niel Turkey had kicked a penalty to level the scores , in the 1 st set during extra time Paul kicked a drop goal directly from the PTB , Haven visibly dropped as it went over , they were done 

[AB90]

I'm a fan of going for the try. Especially at the back end of a game when fatigue has set in.

I always go back to the question - what would the defensive team want the opposition to do? A quick tap and go with a full six at the line is generally the last thing defenses want in that scenario. They want the opposition to take the 2.

So why would you do something that the opposition/defense wants you to do. Well that's my theory behind it.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, AB90 said:

I'm a fan of going for the try. Especially at the back end of a game when fatigue has set in.

I always go back to the question - what would the defensive team want the opposition to do? A quick tap and go with a full six at the line is generally the last thing defenses want in that scenario. They want the opposition to take the 2.

So why would you do something that the opposition/defense wants you to do. Well that's my theory behind it.

Do they ? 

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, Number 16 said:

struggle with the logic of choosing to run rather than kick. To me, surely it's preferable to bag the two and receive again from the kick off, which means you have to find only one try in the remaining minutes

Totally agree, I just can`t imagine a Coach having it any other way. I suppose if there was any question that you may miss the penalty shot, you`d have to be sure you could kick it dead, so you could get it back form the ensuing 20m drop out.

Having said that, if you do go on to score a try, with the preponderance for tries being scored out wide these days, your kicker will still face a pressure kick from the sideline to win the match. How often do they pull it off though ? pretty bloody often, even with the crowd in their ears.

[Kayakman]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

Totally agree, I just can`t imagine a Coach having it any other way. I suppose if there was any question that you may miss the penalty shot, you`d have to be sure you could kick it dead, so you could get it back form the ensuing 20m drop out.

Having said that, if you do go on to score a try, with the preponderance for tries being scored out wide these days, your kicker will still face a pressure kick from the sideline to win the match. How often do they pull it off though ? pretty bloody often, even with the crowd in their ears.

TAKE THE POINTS!  Every hunter knows that one bird in the hand is better than two in the brush.

[Number 16]

4 hours ago, Kayakman said:

TAKE THE POINTS!  Every hunter knows that one bird in the hand is better than two in the brush.

Not as good as having two birds in your hands and one in her bush... 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

1 hour ago, Number 16 said:

Not as good as having two birds in your hands and one in her bush... 

Well done good sir, greatest comment ever! And a bloody good idea as well!

[The Blues Ox]

Most people are taking the 2 points because they see it as been in a great position to kick a goal but at some point you are going to have to score a try and you will have great field position to do that. Its a run every day of the week for me infact roles reversed and it were against my team I'd be very happy to see a team take the two and give my players a rest and time to get organised and focused.

[Lowdesert]

11 hours ago, bobbruce said:

I’d take the two unless I thought the defense was shot. 

That’s exactly it.  Nonsense overthinking it.  Iirc, Hull only had 12 on the pitch.

[Kayakman]

4 hours ago, Number 16 said:

Not as good as having two birds in your hands and one in her bush... 

Good...very funny ...you English have a weird sense of humour.

[Number 16]

How many times do you see supposedly shot defences keep turning up? And I'd argue that in close games fatigue levels are often just about the same for both teams. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

This thread makes me think of the 1983 Challenge Cup Final, though the situation then wasn't quite the same.

Featherstone were trailing Hull 12-5 with 15 minutes to go and were awarded a penalty a yard from the Hull line, about 5m in from the touchline. Tries were still worth 3pts back then.

To a crescendo of boos they opted to take the kick.Steve Quinn nailed it, Dave Hobbs scored a converted try a few minutes later and Quinn notched the match-winning penalty in the closing stages.

Not that this proves anything - process over outcome etc - but it did give me an excuse to relive that game

[Saint Toppy]

It depends on whether you 7 or 8 points behind

If its 7 you need a try first and foremost so running it is the best option, as if your then only 1 point behind it brings the drop goal into play

If its 8 then you might as well take the 2 as you need a try and a penalty to just draw anyway, so take the 2 on offer and then go for the try.

[Sports Prophet]

17 hours ago, AB90 said:

I'm a fan of going for the try. Especially at the back end of a game when fatigue has set in.

I always go back to the question - what would the defensive team want the opposition to do? A quick tap and go with a full six at the line is generally the last thing defenses want in that scenario. They want the opposition to take the 2.

So why would you do something that the opposition/defense wants you to do. Well that's my theory behind it.

Disagree wholeheartedly... on what the defence wants you to do too. 

Take the two every time, in turn almost guaranteeing that one converted try can win/draw you the match. Rather than hope for another penalty or worse, to work even harder to score another try.

Run it, I reckon defence are thinking “just hold out this set and we should be sweet”, whereas with a penalty goal they’re sweating “, now they can win this”.

[Gooleboy]

If taking the 2 means being within a score of winning, take it every time for me.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

On 10/09/2020 at 23:53, AB90 said:

I'm a fan of going for the try. Especially at the back end of a game when fatigue has set in.

I always go back to the question - what would the defensive team want the opposition to do? A quick tap and go with a full six at the line is generally the last thing defenses want in that scenario. They want the opposition to take the 2.

So why would you do something that the opposition/defense wants you to do. Well that's my theory behind it

In all other circumstances I agree to run the ball. However if in the circumstances of the OP I'd say getting within a score I'd more key