Down by 8 and go for two tactic.

[Wizardman]

NSW were down by 8 midway through the second half and they went for the penalty goal instead of attacking in the red zone.

I have never understood why teams do this tactic when 8 down. A team has to score a try anyway in that situation and that score would be just to draw level and hope you kick the goal to draw level. In that situation, you also have to hope like hell that you don't give a penalty away for the opposition to go 8 in front again.

Anybody else disagree with the tactic?

 

[BunniesMan]

Mathematically it is the logical thing to do. Think of it as needing 2 scores. There's nothing (realistic) that gives you 8 points at once. So in that sense the 6 point score and the 2 point score are of equal value. If you have a basically guaranteed chance to get 2 points you take it. Because going for the try is lower odds, statistically most sets of 6 don't lead to tries, so most of the time you'd still be 8 points back.

You take the 2 and make it a one score game. Psychologically that adds pressure onto the leading team, all of a sudden they knew they could be 1 mistake away from giving up the lead.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

NSW were down by 8 midway through the second half and they went for the penalty goal instead of attacking in the red zone.

I have never understood why teams do this tactic when 8 down. A team has to score a try anyway in that situation and that score would be just to draw level and hope you kick the goal to draw level. In that situation, you also have to hope like hell that you don't give a penalty away for the opposition to go 8 in front again.

Anybody else disagree with the tactic?

I was urging to take the 2.. thus agree.

We were woeful for the majority. But this put us within a try of Qld.

If we went for the try and didn’t score, that’d be guaranteed game over for mine.

Take the guaranteed 2 points, we’re back in the contest. Which we were, but blew it.

 

[AJB1102]

You do whatever the opposition want least combined with what your team needs. Time can be an over ruling factor.

 

[no name]

It played into the hands of Qld’s spoiling tactics at the end.

 

[Jackie Treehorn]

There’s no right or wrong answer but in that case I thought the blues had the field position and momentum to go for a try. However their halves weren’t playing with enough composure to lay on a try anyway so as Gus would say the point is mute (he means moot).

 

[lazza]

I think taking the 2 was the right option. If they didn’t, it makes it easier to defend and grub it up knowing that nsw we’re going for the try without the threat of getting a tied game. Right strategy imho

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

The thinking was you’re not going to get another shot at goal the closer you get to full time as refs have shown to be gutless at giving penalties that late. But this plays into the opposition’s hands. Should always go for the try but the Blues didn’t have many in them last night.

 

[lazza]

It played into the hands of Qld’s spoiling tactics at the end.

This is why a rule change is required. Who cares about 6 again or sin binnings late in the game when a try is needed and clock is wasted. Clock should stop on every dead ball in the last 5 mins or something like that and sin binnings in the last 10 should be a penalty kick and the ball back where the kick was taken to truely disincentivise the tactics

 

[Ring Gids]

Mathematically it is the logical thing to do. Think of it as needing 2 scores. There's nothing (realistic) that gives you 8 points at once. So in that sense the 6 point score and the 2 point score are of equal value. If you have a basically guaranteed chance to get 2 points you take it. Because going for the try is lower odds, statistically most sets of 6 don't lead to tries, so most of the time you'd still be 8 points back.

You take the 2 and make it a one score game. Psychologically that adds pressure onto the leading team, all of a sudden they knew they could be 1 mistake away from giving up the lead.

Absolutely the WRONG thing to do analytically. Its not certain to be a 2 score game as you suggest, because if you take the 2, and then score and miss the goal, you actually need 3 scores to tie (and by the time you know that, there will be little time left on the clock).

Instead you go for the try, and if you get the kick, great. But either way you still have more time left on the clock where you know exactly what you need to do to win/tie (either a try or just a penalty goal, depending on what happened previously).

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

You guys forget Val Holmes fluffed 3 try scoring opportunities. 2 certainties. You guys didn't lose because of a kick decision, you lost because you were smacked by the better team. QLD were by far the dominant better team. Full stop.

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

And it looks like we'll look be fielding some Origin superstars like Grant Munster Ponga for a few years to come.

 

[billygilmore]

And it looks like we'll look be fielding some Origin superstars like Grant Munster Pongia for a few years to come.

Yep another rough decade ahead for the blues, couple series wins for them to keep origin alive in NSW's now back to business as usual

 

[Ring Gids]

Better team won the series no doubt. Not the point of the thread though.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Rubbish decision. 8 minutes to go, you need 8 points - you have to score at some stage. You're 10-15m out from their line. You can't guarantee you're going to end up with that sort of field position again if they kick long and you can't get down the field far enough. You have to back yourself while you're down there.

Yes they would've tied it up if not for the most flagrant professional foul of all time, but it was still a dumb decision.

 

[The_Frog]

You guys forget Val Holmes fluffed 3 try scoring opportunities. 2 certainties. You guys didn't lose because of a kick decision, you lost because you were smacked by the better team. QLD were by far the dominant better team. Full stop.

The difference is no-one fluffed anything when JAC was fouled. It was a result determined not by the players, but by a bloke in a room somewhere with some screens, just like the GF. Same bloke in fact.

I'm happy for Qld to have won. Our forwards were garbage for the most part in two of the three games. And I understand the Origin concept needed Qld to win this series to remain viable. But I don't think the game needs blokes in bunkers and with the whistle determining the results of its biggest games.

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

The difference is no-one fluffed anything when JAC was fouled. It was a result determined not by the players, but by a bloke in a room somewhere with some screens, just like the GF. Same bloke in fact.

I'm happy for Qld to have won. Our forwards were garbage for the most part in two of the three games. And I understand the Origin concept needed Qld to win this series to remain viable. But I don't think the game needs blokes in bunkers and with the whistle determining the results of its biggest games.

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

 

[myrrh ken]

Geez mate what rock have you been hiding under the last 2 years?

 

[isaiah]

Yep another rough decade ahead for the blues, couple series wins for them to keep origin alive in NSW's now back to business as usual

Biggest plus for us is we blooded 14 players that Gallen doesn’t rate: two are special and nine more know what is required and can handle it.