Depends on the score, if you're losing you try anything that gets you up quicker.

If you're winning, you play the low percentage, most time wasted plays, we call these tactics, but if by using those tactics you see a gap, a chance to score, you go for it.

A scenario described and expanded on the third post of page nine.

Exactly. Although you're only seeing a small part of the game. There's more than wasting time to those plays.

But the point is, there's a time to play safe and a time to panic. Being a couple of tries down with good time left, shouldn't be considered the time to panic and chuck the ball around in the wrong part of the field. That typically leads to turning the ball over and getting further behind. That was Phil Clarke's point.

But the thing is, if you see an opportunity to score you take it, regardless.

Even a high bomb is designed to score off, you hope the FB bottles it, or messes up, it's not designed to just give them the ball for them to return it as far away from your line as you can.

The bottom line is Mr Clarke ( and all those who agree with what he said ) are trying to appear cleverer than they actually are by taking bollox

What he REALLY meant to say was, that Huddersfield could do with concentrating on completeing a couple of sets wether that meant scoring or gaining some decent field position

Thats what he meant, but that doesnt sound ' clever ' , its like that Gin advert on the telly " aroumas of pretentious bull " or something similar

RL, the simplest game in the world , thats why we like it

Has anyone said otherwise? Has anyone said that if you see an opportunity to score, not to take it? Anywhere? In this thread or the whole of human history?

The high bomb, yes is designed to score.
The downfield punt isn't.
In Starbug rugby you would kick that high bomb from your own 10, rather than kicking away. Which option would you take?

Which is what he did say, you just didn't understand.

Yes we all know what he meant, it was the bull crap way he went about it

" Scoring is not the priority " = BOLLOX

" They need to complete a couple of sets " = common sense

Understood it completely, it was bollox

And why was that?

So not trying to score then? You're contradicting yourself.

The fact is starbug you appear to have absolutley no understanding of the modern game of rugby league. There are alot of subtleties and intricacies to the game, it's not as simple as 'try and score every time we have the ball ''.

You have to earn the right and also pick your moments, balance risk with percentage plays. If you try and score all the time it will involve risky offloads and cut out passes outwide. If you don't earn the right to do this with good forward play and quick play the balls putting the defence on the back foot you can end up getting creamed in posession, losing ground, and if you are lucky enough not to knock on from all the kamikaze passing you are kicking from a crap position and the opposition fullback catches the kick on the full and returns the ball to the halfway line. By the time they finish the set they are in your red zone, prime position for a good attacking kick or a set move, where they then 'try to score'.

But then if you are down the field in your own half but theres a gap in the defence or you spot alot of space outwide teams will attack rather than drop it off to a forward, get me?

Do you think leeds are trying to score when jamie peacock takes a flat pass straight into the defence in his own 20 metres?

Watch australia in the world cup. They will relentlessly complete sets, get up the field, pen the opposition down in their own half and force repeat sets, points will follow. But if theres a lapse in defence anywhere on the field they will click into full attack mode and exploit it.

They won't try and score off every play they will build a game and attack when the opportunities are there.

Quite frankly, you are clueless.

Mitch achurch miracle offload to mcguire in leeds half, mcguire can't take it, naturally (incredibly low percentage play with mcguire charging through and so much traffic). Wigan go 12-6 up from the resultant field position, a decisive swing in the game.

Maybe if leeds had been more patient and tryed to build pressure rather than trying miracle offloads in their own half, they could have stayed in the game longer?

If you quote me, at least put in the whole quote, you missed out part of it that doesnt ' contradict '

I do understand the modern game, and yes there are subtleties and intricacies , there is also loads of bollox quoted by supposed 'experts , quite often trying to sound clever

So tell me, if you are losing, what IS your ' ' priority ' ?

depends how long is left, the defecit, where you are on the pitch, the pattern of the game

See what I mean, complete bollox

To get in a position to score whilst minimising the chance of conceding any more?

Nope, try again

Is it hell - If you are 6-0 down after 20 minutes, you have different priorities and play different plays than if you are 30-12 down with 15 minutes to play.

Its all about percentage play....If you are behind with 10 minutes to go then you take more risks in attack than you would if you were behind with 30 minutes to go...Of course, the name of the game is to score, but its like a boxing bout, with certain opponents you have to soften them up, apply pressure, before actually applying the finishing touch.

Different plays yes, priorities no, yes the name of the game is to score , dont do that and you lose

Boxing is a poor analogy, it isnt a structured sport like RL

No. Almost every set starts with 2 or 3 'settlers', drives normally taken in by forwards, or backs if it's following a deep downfield kick. This is almost always regardless of winning or losing, and will very, very rarely change.

If, by some miracle, a player manages to bust the line and break clear on a simple drive then yes you capitalise on the opportunity. But his brief from the coach is not "do everything to score on that drive". His goal is to make yards, suck in defenders and probably to achieve a specific position on the pitch for the move to follow. If a try somehow comes along, that's a bonus.

Every team also has 'break-out' or 'red' sets which are simple, ball-up-the-jumper sets out of their own 'red zone' with the aim of nothing more than getting to the kick and putting a good chase on. Yes, if a line-break occurs you make the most of it - but the goal and priority of that set is safety and territory, not scoring.

Having said that, you can't genuinely be this clueless, you're obviously trolling.

When Clarke made his comment Huddersfield were well out of their ' red zone ' , they were close to half way, and yes sometimes it seems that teams are following a set ' script ' , something I find very strange to tell the truth

However no matter what plays teams make, the ' Priority ' is to score, and every set starts with that intention, yes that might change by the last play and completion with the best territorial advantage will be what the team will settle for, but to suggest that a team losing by 2 scores in a low scoring match should lose scoring as the priority is just

Thats right, BOLLOX

I couldn't care less what Clarke said. I'm talking about your stupid assertions on game strategy in general.




You find it strange?? You've just exposed your naivety massively. Have you ever even played RL? Every team has several 'scripted' sets. Not just moves, but entire sets mapped out. And they include sets whose sole intention is getting to and achieving a good kick & chase. Not scoring.

What, do you think teams just make it up as they go along??


No, not every set starts with that intention. Taking the ball out your red zone will inevitably start with the call "red set" or "exit set" or similar - the intention from the first drive is safety and achieving a good kick. If you deviate from that be prepared for a royal bollocking from your coach and teammates, especially if it results in an error. I (and others) have already explained all this. If you don't understand I suggest you speak to a good RL coach.

This ' discussion ' started with reference to Mr Clarkes comment on thursday, so I take it you agree with him, yes or no?

As for the general strategy of RL games and the various set plays ,I am fully aware of them and when they are used, but as I said this wasnt the case when Mr Clarke made his comment

Once again the priority when losing is to score, simple as

It may have started there, but it moved on to the game in general. I have no opinion on what he said, it's meaningless. I was just astounded at you.


No you're not. You just said you find it "very strange" when teams "appear to follow a set script".

You don't have a clue.


The overall goal is to score. But (as other have said), scoring off every set or play is dependent on field position, time on the clock, points deficit, etc. Safety and territory is often the priority.

You said "every set starts with an attempt to score". That is simply idiotic and not true - behind or not.

You have no opinion, fair enough I'll ignore yours then, on all the discussion, it is you that doesnt have a clue