Knights v Titans points

[Engine]

First of all, great game of footy by two entertaining teams. The hard running of the Knights in the first half was spectacular. No lumbering up to the advantage line for them. They ran as hard as I've seen any team run all year.
Scott Prince also showed why he is the second best halfback in the world. He was awesome.

But, two points.

1. The decision to take two points by the Gold Coast to make it 23-18. Good or bad call? Unusual tactic, but I thought it was the right one. It sure as hell had me and the Knights on edge.

2. The Zillman no-try. Was it the right call? I think Scott Prince interfered with the marker. The funny thing was...I reckon Scott Prince did not have to do that. But, the right decision was made.

 

[Didgi]

Taking the 2: Good call, but them behind by 5, with time to get a try.

Zillman: An ex-player is needed in the video ref box to sort out the likelys from the unlikelys.

 

[t-ba]

Engine, this a most excellent thread and completely worthy of being separate of the game thread.

I can remember Hoppa blowing a certain try for us against Penrith back in 2003 by interfering with the marker. Fair call today imo.

 

[Timmah]

CBF tbh

 

[Eels Dude]

Didn't see the game... but taking 2 points to put yourself up by 5 is a little mysterious. Given most kickers hit their mark 70-80% of the time, if a try was scored against them they'd more than likely lose the game anyway. And having another set of six would have wasted just as much time on the clock and kept them down that end of the field.

 

[Frederick]

Didn't see the game... but taking 2 points to put yourself up by 5 is a little mysterious. Given most kickers hit their mark 70-80% of the time, if a try was scored against them they'd more than likely lose the game anyway. And having another set of six would have wasted just as much time on the clock and kept them down that end of the field.

Gold Coast took the kick to reduce the margin to 5 - were out by 7 at the time.

 

[Eels Dude]

Gold Coast took the kick to reduce the margin to 5 - were out by 7 at the time.

Ah ok... whoops sorry. That's even worse though. That's a Michael Hagan tactic... and a really stupid one at that. Get the try first... then worry about the extras.

 

[Engine]

I agree with you in a way but...

I had a $50 on the Knights to win. When the penalty was given , I PREFERRED the GC to kick for touch rather than kick for goal.

The GC strategy almost worked. Teams would defend better if they were 7 in front than 5.

 

[Alex28]

Junior Sau was probably not going to stop Zillman from scoring...but interfering with a defender is illegal so the penalty was right whether he was going to stop the try or not.

That however doesn't stop Scott Prince being a whinging b*tch, and the Titans being a bunch of grubs as a whole. They were lucky to still have 13 on the field for the final 10.

 

[Ziggy the God]

As an aside, you see teams do that in the NFL, where they take the points on offer if they need two scores.

 

[Flapper]

The taking the 2 option was the right decision, as was said, GC had to score twice, may as well get one of them out of the way.

Scott Prince f**ked up major interfering with Junior Sau however. It was no accident, he knew what he was doing, he fired up because he got caught.

 

[Hanscholo]

It was an extremely fast game, fastest this year by far that i have seen. Two good sides.

The decision to take the 2. 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other to me. I guess in the end they didnt get the try they needed so it didnt work out. Personally, I think you need to score in that situation. There is a massive difference between the NFL and NRL in terms of kick offs, you cant compare the two situations. The GC took the 2 points and gave away field position. Probably not the right play.

The Zillman no try. Well that was just plain stupid on Prince's behalf. I have nfi if Sau would have stopped him from scoring but Sau was clearly obstructed from being able to make an attempt at least.

I read that Cartwright wasnt happy with the referees. The knights getting 9 sets on the GC, the no try to walker and so on. Well John if your side didnt let in three trys it wouldnt have been 9 sets in a row mate, and if they'd have held their compsure in the play the ball they wouldnt have given away so many penalties. It was a super fast game, many times the knights had players laying on the ground at the side of the ruck avoiding penalties, you were out coached. As far as bad calls are concerned, take a look at the Lulia 'playing at the ball' for one of your trys, Richie Fa'aso injured on the ground interfearing with your hooker. The calls went both ways, your side just managed to get beaten by a lesser side today because your team wasnt up to it. The knights certainly didnt play well, but the GC had no composure to win it.

 

[aqua_duck]

Chris Walker=cat

 

[t1tan]

Im not gonna whinge about the no try decision,every team has games that are won or lost due to ref decisions-it all evens up.
What i am gonna whinge about are the ungrateful newcastle supporters who cant take the win without having a go at the Titans,you won...be gracious about it.

 

[joe9x]

CBF tbh

Then why type anything?

 

[Timmah]

My post refers to ones that were deleted. Doesn't make sense on it's own :lol:I agree with point 2, Scott Prince didn't need to do anything to Sau in the play-the-ball, he cost his side the game.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

1. Take the points whenever you can get them and they are relevant. if they were behind by 9 then of course the points aren't relevant but behind by 7 and the two points make a huge difference.

2. Obvious no try. Not sure if Sau would have saved the try, but Prince denied him all chance to do so and hence it was a definite no try. Really, Prince was lucky he didn't do that in different circumstances, i.e. with 20 minutes remaining otherwise I reckon he'd have had some time in the bin as well.

 

[Timmah]

I would've binned Prince if I was the ref. Sau hadn't even made contact with him.