I have often questioned the logic in Leeds kicking penalties / dropping goals late on in close tense games, but yet the goons on Sky have never mentioned the potential downside of doing so, so I was wondering if anyone else thinks along similar lines?

Tonight, when Sinfield kicked the penalty late on it changed the scoreline from an 8 point advantage 10 points. Game wise, it changes little - Warrington still need to score twice to win. Granted, they would have to kick both goals instead of just one had the difference remained at 8 points, but I still think it's taking a risk. At the time we were deep in their territory and were controlling possession and field position. In that situation, if we turn down the kick at goal and keep the ball, various options are available: A try to put the game beyond doubt, potentially at least one repeat set if we can force a drop out, or the worst case scenario, Warrington get the ball on their own line with 100 yards to go and at least the same amount of time taken out of the game that the penalty would have done.

Instead, by taking the two, we hand the initiative back to the opposition. By taking a short kick off (which they're pretty much 100% guaranteed to do) we run the risk of them getting posession 40 yards away from our line, 60 yards further up the pitch than they would have been and momentum now back with them. Now, many will no doubt say that in such positions you have to back yourself from a short kick off and close the game out from there. Without doubt I'm thinking negatively by being wary of this, but I base this on Leeds probably being 50/50 at best from short kick offs - in fact I've seen Leeds lose possession far more than gain it - or it certainly seems that way anyway (the Catalans game being an exception) - I'm sure TVOC will pop up with stats to disprove my claim, but that's my gut feeling anyway

As it turned out, Warrington did indeed get the ball back from the short kick off, and had an opportunity to score a try which would have put them either 4 or 6 behind with a few minutes still to go. Obviously, they missed their chance and by the time they did score it was too late, but I'm just throwing it out there



Another example was in one of the GF's against Saints (2009 I think...) we drop a goal with a few minutes to go which does nothing to change the overall match situation score wise, but hands field position over to Saints when we could have spent a few more minutes down at their end. From the short kick off they very nearly retain possession, and from there the game could have changed dramatically. I think something similar may have happened in the most recent GF against Warrington...

So what would you do? Take the two and risk losing possession and field position from the short kick off, or retain possession and try and keep the ball as far away from our own line as possible for the remainder of the game? Naturally, if there's only 1 score difference, and taking the two changes this to two scores it's a no brainer, but when the penalty changes little score wise, I'm just not sure...

By the way, this is not a post match moan when we've had a very good hard earned victory - merely an observation based on a few occasions when this scenario has come up. The fact that in each of the cases I've referred to, the decision didn't end up costing us suggests I'm wrong, I'm just thinking from the point of view of REALLY not wanting to see any more short kick offs with a few minutes to go in big games and having to sweat potentially unnecessarily for a few minutes

It was late in the game, it eats up the clock we get two points and we get the ball back. The right decision IMO. We tend to take the two when we think its going to be a tight game. Taking the two helped us earn the two points in France on monday

I personally wanted us to run the final penalty and at worst keep them in their 20m.
What i did notice was Sinfield checking the clock before opting for the 2 and he made the call that at the very worst the clock would finish Wire off even in the event of their last second "wide to west" effort.
For me if there was 4/5minutes left then yeh but i'm sure there was 8minutes left when he kicked and again id have ran it because they seemed to fire up for one last effort albeit in vane.
It worked for us so fair do's but another set on their line would have imo prevented that last try and possibly got us another one.

We had been out on our feet before that set, looking very fatigued. It was right to take the two at that stage, IMO.

Was that the only penalty we got in the 2nd half? Amazing really considering how Child seemed to be cracking down on messing about at the ruck, Wire were probably worse in this area in the 2nd half than they were in the first.

In hindsight, the one thing I didn't refer to in my original post which I should have done was the fatigue level... Given this, taking the two does indeed give the team a potentially valuable breather, so you definitely have a point on that score... However, if you are a fatigued player, what would you rather be doing - attacking 10 yards from the opposition's line (bearing in mind the like of Hall, Watkins, Moon and Hardaker who all still looked fairly fresh could have taken a few drives in - as Hall indeed did end up doing quite a few times in the remaining play) or defending 35 yards out against a team throwing it about all over the place desperate for a score?

At the end of the day, the fact that by taking the two Leeds showed they backed themselves to handle the short kick off, hence showing positivity as opposed to my negativity, and they turned out to be right - but it could so very easily have gone against us. It just makes it all the tougher to watch when supporting a team who put us through the wringer enough as it is

From a Wire point of view I was relieved with the decision to go for 2.

A tap, no mistakes, and at worst give us the ball back a minute later 95m or so from your line, or at best score a try to finish us off. Taking the 2 and moving from 8 to 10 points ahead made little difference, maybe used up less time and gave us the opportunity to get the ball back in the Leeds half.

Ultimately it made no difference in the end, but for a minute or so it gave us hope of snatching a totally undeserved win.

His decision making in terms of penalties and one pointers has never really cost us and as was shown in France on Monday his ability to use his goal kicking to ensure victories in games is second to none.

I thought the taking the 2 in the last few minutes was the right call as we looked knackered.
I would disagree with the decision early in the first half to take the 2. I know it took us 2 scores ahead but I thought we were well ontop at that point and another set on their would have led to a try for us.

But then I'm not Leeds captain for several very good reasons

For me it all depends on the score not the clock. If we are 4 in front then go for 2 as 6 is a converted try for them to draw level. If the 2 points does not give us another converted try advantage then try and score a try or pin them down their end.

Good call by the o p in my opinion the Wire poster said it all it gave them a chance that they should not have been given , fatigue is always going to kick in more without the ball than with it . Saying that and defending Sinny he makes more good calls than bad

Indeed.2003 is an experience that the skipper would not like to taste again.

Often it is a mixed blessing to be awarded a penalty near the opponent's line ,you have to gamble ,take an easy two points or go for six points and possibly get nothing.Many times a defending team holds a player down,preventing an inevitable try from being scored ,in that sort of situation they have nothing to lose.I would like to see a rule change ,where, after a successful penalty goal the non offending team gets to restart on the opponent's forty metre line with a tap.So you can take the two points without losing too much field position and still retain possession.

Don't particulary like that idea personally. It's like being penalised twice. Keep the rule how it is, there is nothing wrong with it.

with sinfields kicking game this season [ up till last night being almost perfect the constant kicking of penalties means that without having your line really threatened you're suddenly points down and struggling to get anything from the leeds defence
leeds are trying to score from every visit to their opponents half and thats no bad thing in my eyes, we've not looked brilliant close to the line and by not scoring a try with give a psychological boost to our opponents
we proved against wigan last year and catalan last week how effective the 2 can be

I'm also reminded of the draw between Wigan and Warrington earlier this year where several easily kick-able penalties were refused, particularly by Warrington. Have turned down the two points on offer on multiple occassions both teams finished the game with a desperate scramble for a 1 pointer.

I trust Sinfield, simple as that really.

I questioned it at the time, but with a more rational look at it in retrospect it was the correct decision for the following reasons.
* It means that the opposition have to score 2 tries to deny us a victory, rather than 2 scores. Wire had only scored 3 tries in the preceding 75 mins
* It is a risk free way to eat up a minute. No matter how conservative you are ball retention is still not guarunteed. 1 minute more gone, a slightly better cushion, and a 50-50 chance of getting the ball back
* Fatigue - Leeds players get a rest
* Defence - We back ourselves to defend a set of 6 starting on the 40m line - as it was Warrington scored, but it was a crazy try with some pretty skilful and desperate play.
* Points difference - very minor point, but with the top of the league looking quite even, the extra 2 points (4 point swing for Wire) difference was welcome, though not vital

IMV it depends on a number of factors, most of which have been stated above.
WRT yesterday's game, Sinfield took to 2 when we were 6 up when the game looked as if it would be tight, to take us 2 scores clear.
He then chose not to do the same when we were in a similar position towards the end of the first half & we scored another try. With our well known propensity to bomb tries when close to the opponents' line that could have backfired, fortunately it didn't.
Then in the 2nd half he took the 2 to make it that Wolves had to score 2 converted tries to ensure a win. That reduced the time they had to score twice, even if we failed to regather the likely short kick off.
Against lesser opposition I'm sure that in similar circumstances we would have opted for a tap.
I thought it showed the usual game awareness & management of Sinfield.
He rarely takes the wrong option in those situations.

The 2013 Leeds side seems to have a great deal of confidence in its ability to defend its line, which is borne out by the numbers. Second only to Wigan before this round of games in terms of points per game conceded.

That makes you more confident to take the points when they are on offer even if it means giving up field position by doing so.

As we saw from Monaghan's first try, having field position and possession is no guarantee that the opposition won't break away and score.

You can't underestimate the psychological effect on your opponents. At times I'm sure the extra two points can have a devastating effect on morale (taking the gap from 6 to 8 or 12 to 14 for example), but equally there are other times when taking the two can not only be a relief for the opposition, but give them a boost.

IMO a classic example of the latter was in the Cup Final last year. Taking the kick in the last couple of minutes of the first half would have been a huge relief for the Warrington players, and from a fans perspective at that moment I felt very confident that we would win the game as Leeds weren't backing themselves to score the try from a few metres out.

Interesting discussion.

I wouldn't have opted to take the final two in that exact situation as with so much time left on the clock it didn't overly alter Warrington's target. Before the penalty they needed two tries and that remained the case after the successful kick.

I'd then back the restart team as a reasonable favourite to take possession from the kick-off with momentum allowing for a better jump and the abiity to have more players committed to the area to sweep up any knock downs. Scoring two tries in the final five to six minutes from there remained a possibility. In the event Cooper was driven back from the line (Leeds concede an offside penalty - same as V Bradford only this time no dissent and no sin-binning but you see the danger of playing at the wrong end of the field) and the referee came up with a debateable forward pass ruling albeit Warrington had failed to execute having worked a clear overlap. I know it didn't happen but had they scored there and converted - reducing the deficit to four - it would still be game on with three mins to go.

And that's why I'd have much prefered the option to run the penalty in that situation looking for the score to put the game safe and/or forcing a repeat set looking to maintain good field position and challenging the opposition to go the length if/when they take possession.

....and that does seem to be the crux of the matter. Hopefully that might change with better prolonged game time from McShane who does know how to jump over from dummy half close to the line.

As has been mentioned already - the psychological effect that conceding points can have on a defending team.

3 converted penalties have a much greater psychological impact than 1 converted try although the score line is the same. In the back of your mind, buried in your subconscious is the feeling that you’re opposition has the upper hand (by repeatedly scoring against you) which can be quite demoralising.