It runs the clock down as well. Strange though that after taking the two points at the next penalty we decided to run with the ball.

id imagine therell be times this season hull will run it when they should go for goal just because they have the choice. sharp seemed to have someone stood on the touchline with a cone for 80mins just so when hull got a penalty hed be on the pitch before the players could make a decision for themselves.

in answer to the question, it completely depends on the situatio. i wasnt there last night so cant comment on that

Didnt we end up scoring not long afte one though

I was there last night and was intrigued by the switch in tactics when we generally ran the ball but then took the 2 on offer with one of the middle penalties.

Horses for courses I think. The situation is what dictates what you do.

I'd generally go for the penalty as you get the baall back anyway plus anything that reduces the chance of injuries in situations like last night when the game is already won has got to be a good thing.

I agree. The players know if the opposition are struggling fitness wise just as they know if they themselves need a breather.

We can only speculate up in the stands.

Take a tap then drop a goal directly after!

running the ball not only puts pressure on but it also helps tire the opposition out, going for 2 gives them a breather and a chance to get organised.

it may have drawn petrol out of their tank defending
two more sets but id take the 2 pts

moron

On all occasions we had Catalans on the rack and I think it was 100% the right decision to make. Shows confidence that we think we can score too, something that's been sadly lacking for a while now.

Plus for me i think unless you're gaining something ie going from 16 points up to 18 ie increasing amount of times opponents have to score then i would run it as it tires teams out having to do more goal line defence

The Crooksy replacement guy on the sideline with the headset was getting info from the coaches in the directors box then signalling to the field on Friday, so we could tell when they were going to run it. TBH Catalans looked tired and with the pressure, running it was a good option, but I do agree with the OP - generally take the 2 on offer.

I hate it when teams go for the 2 when it doesnt make a difference.

Catalans was on the rack all 3 times, you have to run it.

What do you mean

The guy who used to be Steve Crooks and now isn't (stands on the touchline with a headset, communicating with Agar and Sharp)

Ben Cooper

The man, the legend

Yep, unless it makes a vital difference to the score (changing who's in the lead or putting you an extra score ahead) running it is the way to go.

Suppose its all down to how the game is going, how tight it is and if your not getting the run of the ball inhand. And at what stage the game is at (time left).

Think we made the right choices though

Friday night it made sense to run the ball as many have already said. Also like Hutchie said it depends on the game itself, if it is a very tight game then you take the 2 on offer 99% of the time. A lot also depends on the way the game is going at the moment you get the penalties.

When you have a kicker as good as Danny Tickle then taking two nailed on points is always going to be an attractive option, plus you get the ball back. But obviously match situations can dictate otherwise.

But not much point if your are struggling to make yards out your own half (not that we was though)

I would also add in the quality of the oppositions kicker into the decison making as Bosc is probably the best kicker in the league so 8 point to 10 isnt going to make much difference as he would probably convert both scores should the opposition get them.

2 points for me, if they're easy. Get the ball back as well.

I'd probably work on the assumption that whoever it is is going to kick them all when making a decision. You never know where a try will be scored, after all.