WiL Round 16 | Knights 38-20 Tigers @ Hunter | Mon 7.00pm

[perverse]

Yeah that's my argument.

Tigers still had to score three tries either way.

Are we any more comfortable if the Tigers scored a quick try being up by 10 than up by 8? Not really.

If we'd been 12 up and the penalty took us more than two converted tries ahead I would have no reservations.

If we'd been 16 up and the penalty took us three converted tries ahead I'd have no reservations.

Going up from 14 to 16 is much of a muchness to me. Sure, you wind down the clock. But when you're playing 12 men and have a new set of six 10 out straight in front I'd think that is one of the few times I would genuinely consider taking the tap. You can kill the game right there.

As it turned out, another penalty did take us to 18 points ahead and safe, so you can credit the first penalty for that.

I'm fencesitting a fair bit on this whole issue a bit because I'm generally a big fan of taking the points. But I don't think two points are always worth the same amount. If ever points are worthless it was this case.

it's not so much about what position in the game you're in. the only position i can think of where i wouldn't take the 2 is if i were 10 points behind with like 7 minutes to go. in that case the argument holds perfect weight to take the tap, as you still need 2 tries in 7 minutes, regardless. you can't kill a game of Rugby League "right there" in the NRL unless you're in the very dying stages, especially against the tigers. if they can score twice in quick succession, they can score 3 times. once you start trying to "ice the game early" you let in the possibility of switching off, as the job is done. i would argue very strongly that you play the 80 regardless, and that 14 points ahead versus 20 points ahead shouldn't change the way you execute your gameplan one iota. the truth is, we're only talking about the difference of 2-4 points depending on where you actually score the try and the quality of your goalkicker. one is guaranteed points on the board and the ball back 999 times out of 1000.

 

[perverse]

Obviously I don't feel that way - it was simply a way to look at it because you seemed to be implying that scoring more points over a long period of time should be the objective, when I think winning the game is more important.

Until this point I think the debate was healthy - really no need to call me "cute" in the most patronising way possible.

of course winning the game is important. you win more games by scoring more points, more often. trying to extrapolate it to an argument about sample sizes and whatnot is just ridiculous and distracting to the argument, and oyu really gave me the shits by trying to take it down a road that isn't even relevant to the topic. it's just misdirection. the method i suggested is as true for a single decision as it is for 1000 decisions in a row. you have a far, far greater chance of getting a positive result taking the 2, every single time you ever take it. full stop.

it's obvious that with 5 minutes left on the clock and needing 10 points you wouldn't take the 2. that goes without saying for anyone who isn't completely mentally disabled.

I'm glad you picked up on how silly i think your argument is. i don't feel it holds weight and i don't feel you can build a simple argument for it that can't be equaled or rebuked completely by my own position.

If I was defending my line with 12 men and the opposition was up by three tries, and they chose to take the shot at goal which would put them up by...three tries, I would consider it a get out of jail free card.

Whether that makes it the right or wrong decision for the opposition is another thing.

there are more variables, though. imagine if the Tigers do repel us a man down? we could make an error. there is far too much variance in it.

 

[K-Man]

you're trying to argue sample size? ridiculous. you rebuke my statement but provide no substance for your own. the fact is, you can take a guaranteed 2 points and get the ball back, or you can give the opportunity to the opposition to repel your attack, gain confidence and do more damage than it is worth to take an extra 2-4 points from that particular moment in the game. you're only convincing me further that i'm right.

I've provided a string of specific points to back my argument, so to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

You not agreeing with me does not equal me not providing any substance of my own.

I believe that some of the intangibles you bring up such as confidence become less and less important the less time is on the clock.

In every match it gets to a point where time/points difference is everything - is it possible to score as many tries as we need in the amount of time available?

Confidence from defending your line is so much less important at this late stage. In fact, to win the game you can't even afford for there to be any other times where the opposition is even attacking your line.

Surely you can accept that within reason things get to a stage where you have to look at the cold hard facts about what is the best way to win this game of football from a mathematical point of view?

16 and 14 is basically the same thing when there is 10 minutes left. Just before half time and same scoreline, I'm fine with taking the shot for goal.

 

[Johns Magic]

Look, if I play devil's advocate any more I'm going to end up trying to convince myself that the tap was the right choice, which I don't think it was.

My argument is simply that if ever there was a right time to take the tap when ahead, it was last night when 4 points at the time would have been worth ten times more than 2 points, and we were ten metres out with the momentum against 12 men.

I don't think what K-Man is arguing is silly.

 

[K-Man]

What was the most likely way for the Tigers to have won that game at the last minute?

The answer, surely, is to have scored three tries at the end. That is how they could win - that is pretty much the ONLY way they could win.

How did we make that objective harder for them by taking the 2 points? We didn't.

If we score a try, the game is over. If we score 2 points, the actual situation of the match in terms of who needs to do what to win barely changes at all.

That's why 2 points are not always equal.

 

[perverse]

I've provided a string of specific points to back my argument, so to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

You not agreeing with me does not equal me not providing any substance of my own.

I believe that some of the intangibles you bring up such as confidence become less and less important the less time is on the clock.

In every match it gets to a point where time/points difference is everything - is it possible to score as many tries as we need in the amount of time available?

Confidence from defending your line is so much less important at this late stage. In fact, to win the game you can't even afford for there to be any other times where the opposition is even attacking your line.

Surely you can accept that within reason things get to a stage where you have to look at the cold hard facts about what is the best way to win this game of football from a mathematical point of view?

16 and 14 is basically the same thing when there is 10 minutes left. Just before half time and same scoreline, I'm fine with taking the shot for goal.

so you're happy to take the tap and not get points, rather than just take the 2 in some situations?

 

[perverse]

i can't imagine a time when you're leading a match when taking the 2 is the wrong option. i really can't. 5 minutes into the game, 4 points ahead... take the 2. 10 minutes to go, 16 points ahead.. take the 2.

even 14 points ahead with 10 to go... you take the damn 2. it takes about 3-4 minutes off the clock by the time you've taken the kick, had the restart and completed your next set. you get another 2 points. no downside, all upside. it's just always the right decision unless you're chasing a big lead with limited time. i just cannot see it any other way. until we take the 2 with 5 minutes to go and 10 points down (this is one of the rare instances i can see actual weight for taking the tap over the 2) then i'll support it 110%. i can't see another way being correct.

if we're not going to agree, we're not going to agree... but as far as i can see the math is on my side and i'm happy to side with it on its own, let alone the other factors i also think support it. i can't fathom taking the tap being correct in many situations at all if the kicker can make the kick with relative ease. you can bleat on about what if we knock it on in our own end, etc.... but if we're the team that are going to be knocking on in our own end, we've got much bigger problems than taking the 2 vs the tap. we need to train for and assume we're not going to be that team anymore. taking the 2 as a rule is a small but not insignificant part of not being that team anymore.

 

[K-Man]

Look, if I play devil's advocate any more I'm going to end up trying to convince myself that the tap was the right choice, which I don't think it was.

My argument is simply that if ever there was a right time to take the tap when ahead, it was last night when 4 points at the time would have been worth ten times more than 2 points, and we were ten metres out with the momentum against 12 men.

I don't think what K-Man is arguing is silly.

It's not silly, and I have even said that plenty of good judges would agree with you, Perverse.

But seriously to try and make it seem like my point is somehow naive and stupid and makes absolutely no sense is just you being pig-headed.

I understand your point, I just don't agree with it. But I don't feel the need to call it "cute". It's your opinion and many would support it.

My opinion is the opposite and many, including Phil Gould, would strongly support that.

We've both made our points, but only one of us has resorted to arguing that the other person's points are stupid, wrong, cute, make no sense or whatever else you were trying to imply in your extremely condescending tone.

Mathematically, my argument has some merit. That doesn't mean it 100% right and that I know better than you, but it has enough merit for you to at least acknowledge it.

 

[Joker's Wild]

What was the most likely way for the Tigers to have won that game at the last minute?

The answer, surely, is to have scored three tries at the end. That is how they could win - that is pretty much the ONLY way they could win.

How did we make that objective harder for them by taking the 2 points? We didn't.

If we score a try, the game is over. If we score 2 points, the actual situation of the match in terms of who needs to do what to win barely changes at all.

That's why 2 points are not always equal.

By taking away the 2 elements within a game they required to score those 3 tries: Time and possession

Besides, yes they needed to score 3 times to win but if all of those tries were scored out wide then there is no certainty they will convert them all. Being 16 up could just be the difference

 

[K-Man]

so you're happy to take the tap and not get points, rather than just take the 2 in some situations?

Not sure what you mean? Is this question the wrong way around?

I'm prepared to admit that in some circumstances I can see why it makes sense to take the 2 points.

A lot of the times it is not what I would tell my to do as coach, but it's a flip of the coin and I know why teams do it, if that's what your question was?

I just don't think this was one of those situations.

 

[perverse]

Not sure what you mean? Is this question the wrong way around?

I'm prepared to admit that in some circumstances I can see why it makes sense to take the 2 points.

A lot of the times it is not what I would tell my to do as coach, but it's a flip of the coin and I know why teams do it, if that's what your question was?

I just don't think this was one of those situations.

the point i'm making is that you give the opposition an opportunity to make a very positive play (by repelling your attack) by taking a tap, every time. you give them no such opportunity taking the 2, ever. sure, you have the opportunity yourself to add another 2 or 4 if you're lucky on top of that... but that is scant reward for giving them the ability to say no. it's about smothering a team out of the game. don't give them an inch, or even the opportunity to take an inch, if you can avoid it.

you infer that taking the 2 is like releasing a pressure valve. i'm trying to illustrate how it's more akin to tightening your fingers around someones neck, if you're good enough... and we will be.

yeah, i'm being a bit of a jerk. look, i recognize the point you're trying to make, and the point is technically "valid", perhaps there is an argument to be made there. i just think it's very, very incorrect for so many reasons that i've lost count.

 

[Johns Magic]

i can't imagine a time when you're leading a match when taking the 2 is the wrong option. i really can't. 5 minutes into the game, 4 points ahead... take the 2. 10 minutes to go, 16 points ahead.. take the 2.

even 14 points ahead with 10 to go... you take the damn 2. it takes about 3-4 minutes off the clock by the time you've taken the kick, had the restart and completed your next set. you get another 2 points. no downside, all upside. it's just always the right decision unless you're chasing a big lead with limited time. i just cannot see it any other way. until we take the 2 with 5 minutes to go and 10 points down (this is one of the rare instances i can see actual weight for taking the tap over the 2) then i'll support it 110%. i can't see another way being correct.

Except if you don't complete that set and the opposition are now camped in your area needing the same amount of tries as before.

Negative attitude? f**k yeah it is. But it happens in footy, all the time. Then the momentum swings as the opposition gets a sniff, and if they score a try off the mistake the whole complexion of the game changes...and you're ruing that shot at goal you took that essentially achieved nothing when you had the chance to close the game out and camp down their end of the field.

The whole argument is getting ridiculously hypothetical now. But I do know what the Tigers were thinking last night...and that was that they needed to get down the other end of the field ASAP and score three tries. Kicking the penalty didn't change that, and them kicking off got them down the right end of the field.

 

[K-Man]

By taking away the 2 elements within a game they required to score those 3 tries: Time and possession

Besides, yes they needed to score 3 times to win but if all of those tries were scored out wide then there is no certainty they will convert them all. Being 16 up could just be the difference

Neither of those are guaranteed to be better either way.

Time it takes for the kick at goal can be negated by time camped up their end forcing repeat sets with better short kicking than Mullen appears capable of (whole different issue).


You have possession either way - one is at their end of the field and one is at your end of the field. In either case you can drop the ball, and in either case you can have a great set of 6.

But you're not taking away the things they require to score - you're hoping it takes them away more than the alternative.

 

[perverse]

By taking away the 2 elements within a game they required to score those 3 tries: Time and possession

Besides, yes they needed to score 3 times to win but if all of those tries were scored out wide then there is no certainty they will convert them all. Being 16 up could just be the difference

nail, head, etc.

 

[perverse]

Neither of those are guaranteed to be better either way.

Time it takes for the kick at goal can be negated by time camped up their end forcing repeat sets with better short kicking than Mullen appears capable of (whole different issue).


You have possession either way - one is at their end of the field and one is at your end of the field. In either case you can drop the ball, and in either case you can have a great set of 6.

But you're not taking away the things they require to score - you're hoping it takes them away more than the alternative.

no no no no no. how is the time spent taking the goal ever negated by anything, ever? it is not negated by time camped up their end because you can force that in your next set anyway. you can keep them up their end with your defense, too. that is a thing... and with Mullos long kicking game we should be looking for that a hell of a lot more often. that is completely, absolutely false.

the kick at goal takes time, the kickoff also takes time. with 10 or less on the clock, they are EXTREMELY relevant factors.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Neither of those are guaranteed to be better either way.

Time it takes for the kick at goal can be negated by time camped up their end forcing repeat sets with better short kicking than Mullen appears capable of (whole different issue).


You have possession either way - one is at their end of the field and one is at your end of the field. In either case you can drop the ball, and in either case you can have a great set of 6.

But you're not taking away the things they require to score - you're hoping it takes them away more than the alternative.

Taking the 2 points definitely takes away those 2 elements. Taking a tap maybe does

That's the difference mate. Certainty

 

[perverse]

Except if you don't complete that set and the opposition are now camped in your area needing the same amount of tries as before.

Negative attitude? f**k yeah it is. But it happens in footy, all the time. Then the momentum swings as the opposition gets a sniff, and if they score a try off the mistake the whole complexion of the game changes...and you're ruing that shot at goal you took that essentially achieved nothing when you had the chance to close the game out and camp down their end of the field.

The whole argument is getting ridiculously hypothetical now. But I do know what the Tigers were thinking last night...and that was that they needed to get down the other end of the field ASAP and score three tries. Kicking the penalty didn't change that, and them kicking off got them down the right end of the field.

i'm not talking in hypotheticals, and i've already said if we're knocking it on in our own end then we have far greater dramas than taking the 2. my whole premise is built upon not being that team - and i set up that premise at the very beginning of the discussion.

K-mans arguments are absolutely built on hypotheticals. what if this, how about that, etc. myself and JW are the complete opposite even, our argument is based on what is CERTAIN if you take the 2. it is certain every single time. you WILL get a kick at goal. it WILL eat up time on the clock, you WILL get 2 points, you WILL get possession back. these are all desirable, measurable and guaranteed.

 

[Johns Magic]

the kick at goal takes time, the kickoff also takes time. with 10 or less on the clock, they are EXTREMELY relevant factors.

There were 18 minutes left.

10 or less on the clock and there is no doubt in my mind the penalty was the right choice.

 

[perverse]

There were 18 minutes left.

10 or less on the clock and there is no doubt in my mind the penalty was the right choice.

K-Man set up the 10 minutes on the clock analogy. i was only running with what he said. i wasn't checking the clock every minute at the ground - i have to completely turn my head away from the action to do so. you can probably keep a better eye on the clock watching on TV.

18 minutes is still absolutely fine in my mind. as i said, it irked me at the ground, but the more i've discussed it today the more confident i am it was the correct decision.

 

[K-Man]

Except if you don't complete that set and the opposition are now camped in your area needing the same amount of tries as before.

Negative attitude? f**k yeah it is. But it happens in footy, all the time. Then the momentum swings as the opposition gets a sniff, and if they score a try off the mistake the whole complexion of the game changes...and you're ruing that shot at goal you took that essentially achieved nothing when you had the chance to close the game out and camp down their end of the field.

The whole argument is getting ridiculously hypothetical now. But I do know what the Tigers were thinking last night...and that was that they needed to get down the other end of the field ASAP and score three tries. Kicking the penalty didn't change that, and them kicking off got them down the right end of the field.

It definitely does happen, it's just the nature of the game. For anyone to argue that you just have to be good enough to defend it is not taking into account that it is a game and things happen.

Even the good teams make mistakes. Maybe a defender will rush out like Edwards, put a massive shot on you second tackle forcing the ball free and get a scrum 20 out with a chance to score the try they desperately need. And all this happens within minutes of you having a chance to attack their try line.

Not every attitude that is realistic is negative. As much as Perverse argues that it is always better to take the 2 points, I could argue that it is always better to have possession at the other end of the field. If you force a few line drop-outs you've pretty much killed off the game the same as a try would.

Like you said JM, I have very little doubt the Tigers were pleased with our decision. It was the decision that kept things realistically achievable for them. They would've run down to halfway saying "short kick-off boys, let's get a result here and see what we can do".