Go for broke or take the 3?

This RC two teams have faced NZ and been faced with the situation: do we go for the jugular and go for the try or do we tick the scoreboard over and come back for more? Hooper was not only overcome by 'white line fever' but he also had at the back of his mind that NZ were one man down. A try right before half time would've made a bold statement. De Villiers had a penalty at the 74th minute yesterday. It was very kickable. He decided to win it there and then with a lineout rolling maul.

Hindsight is a very frustrating thing but it doesn't look back favourably on both those decisions. Hooper later gained a penalty, Beale hit the post and Australia came away with nothing. In the end a draw would've been turned into a win by 3, provided of course if Beale had made the first kick. Yesterday, SA appeared to be finishing stronger than NZ. JDV went for the lineout drive but it ended up soaking up the remaining time of the match, despite an impressive tighthead to earn an attacking scrum. A penalty wouldn't have won the game for SA, but they would've been within 1 point with more or less five minutes on the clock. You could trust your team to make the necessary territory gain and then you have the choice of trying to earn a penalty or positioning yourself for the drop goal.

Putting all your eggs in the try basket is one fraught with danger. The only time I'd advocate going for 7 instead of 3 is if you have a cushion of more than 7 points. You could say, if you're down by more than two tries, the penalty is not a good option but this again often sees the team come away with nothing. With a few minutes remaining and down by 15, then by all means go for the try. But near the start of the match and a try or two down, coming away with almost certain points is better than hoping to get 5 or 7 possible points. When behind and given the opportunity for a kickable penalty goal, ticking that scoreboard over by 3 is always advisable. Despite the NZ crowd's absurd prejudice against the drop goal, the drop goal is also a good option when your options are exhausted to get 3 quick points and make your territory count.

Do you think that too many teams get sucked in by the possibility of scoring a try or do you argue that not enough teams go for broke?

If you only have 7 minutes left going for broke is the only realistic option in my view.

Time is almost u and I have seen many teams including SA going for a penalty hoping to gain the territory for another.

It happened to them last week where Australia gained possession in the last two minutes and managed to retain the possession until the siren went.

SUre at halftime take the points, or anytime up to the 70th minute.

But when there is less than ten minutes left take the line out and go for the try.

You just need a scrum go wrong with a few resets and you lose 2-3 minutes.

A line out can take a minute if the opposition slows the game down.

I would think there is no time like the present when you have less than 10 minutes to go.

I agree. I'd have gone with the try all day with five minutes to go, and there are a few reasons for this
1 - time. Only five minutes to go. There's an argument that trying to score twice in a game you've only boarded twice in the preceding 74 minutes is definitely the riskier option
2 - "match flow" Simply put the Boks had made too many errors in the game for me to have confidence in them managing to create a scoring opportunity from deep in our half (which is undoubtedly where NZ woulda kicked) without an error.

3 - fatigue, it would have been a monumental effort from the Boks to create a second opportunity
4 - "match flow" again... The maul had worked a few minutes earlier and while I abhor it, I think there's justified cause to try it again.

A couple weeks ago Mike said something on the cricket forum which I think is pertinent here. To paraphrase it for rugby purposes. In the last ten minutes of a tight rugby match, there's no such thing as a good decision, only justifiable ones. Completely justified for me.

I'm partial to taking 3 points if it gets your team across a multiple of 7 threshold. Much like if a team is ahead and a shot at goal would take them past a multiple of 7.

I know context and momentum have to be taken into account, as well as the quality of your kicker, but sometimes white line fever has to be taken into account and the possibility of leaving the opposition 22 empty handed from a lineout is far greater than that of a kick at goal.

I think in the context of the NZ SA game SA may have missed a trick. I'd have backed them to get another shot at getting within penalty taking distance. Lot of pressure on Pollard mind you.

disneychilly wrote:I think in the context of the NZ SA game SA may have missed a trick. I'd have backed them to get another shot at getting within penalty taking distance. Lot of pressure on Pollard mind you.

However, the Boks had had only one kickable penalty in the entire half up to that point, so I can see the logic behind the decision to go for the try.

You all make valid points. However, I much prefer having the option of needing to win a game through a number of scoring options instead of only through a try.

I guess you could well argue Hooper's and JDV's decisions were both justifiable or at least defensible to coin your paraphrased phrase kingraf. Obviously if you win the game, you can justify anything much easier.

As an aside, the decision by the Pumas yesterday to take a scrum looked equally defensible given their second half resurgence in that area. However, hindsight suggested taking a tap would've been a better option. Hindsight when you lose is always a rucking be-atch.

This of course presupposes that 1. if a goalkick is attempted its converted
2.the lineout is won,driven/mauled and a try occurs in 2009 the Bulls/Boks
conversion rate was pretty much decisive.
Today at least versus the AllBlacks it seldom succeeds,but as a general rule
kicking goals is the safer option.

Problem with the Goal kicking option is that it then proposes that we are going to drive the the ball back into kickable territory without losing the ball...I'm not sure we had an adequate conversion rate of holding onto the ball Saturday. Or how many times we went from deep in our half, to the AB half with ball in hand.

It didn't help that when you did through Habana and Le Roux doing their running thing through broken play that Hougaard inexplicably kicked the ball away when it was all on to keep the ball in hand and find the gaps out wide.

Numerous factors to take into account - how well is your goal kicker doing? How well is your lineout holding up? Time left? Which parts of your game are working best? How easy are you finding it to break through the opposition?

Context is everything.

Robshaw got criticism for his notorious decision to kick for goal against South Africa not along ago - time was definitely against England. In that situation I would have gone for broke.

I would say if you are within 5 points with more than 5 minutes to go - take the 3.

Say you are 5 points down 75mins ... corner or posts???

What are the chances you actually score? No idea but I imagine its less than 1/5.

What's the chances of scoring the kick - +70% so more than likely.

and teams within range react differently. They compete less knowing a ruck handling penalty will gift the opposition a shot for the win.

Keep the scoreboard ticking over. Remember 1999 when Jannie De Beer kicked 5 DGs against England. Their is a great shot of Jonno, Vickery et al simply looking behind them as another kick goes over.... the mental drain from those kicks must have been huge.

Need to be quick taking the kick too as any kick at goal naturally eats up the clock.

beshocked wrote:Need to be quick taking the kick too as any kick at goal naturally eats up the clock.

So not Neil Jenkins then?

tcup

Depends completely on the situation.

6 minutes to go - and down by 4/5 I would usually take an easy kick. Teams panic when defending narrow leads and there is always time to sneak another penalty. Refs seem to love penalising teams they think are trying to run down the clock.

Early in the game - well decides what statement you are trying to make. Too often teams go ffo rthe try - opposition are penalised, but no YC issued, the atatcking team go for try again and eventually are turned over. Certain (un-named) teams thrive on opponents refusing to take points and refs keeping cards in pocket.

A tough question, and hindsight is certainly a wonderful thing here, but you simply can't judge a decision on hindsight. I agree with raf, there is no "right" or "wrong" here, simply two possibilities, both with their pros and cons. The captain, with all the available data to him at that time, makes what he thinks is the best decision at the time.

In general I'm a fan of taking the points on offer. Obviously there are exceptions, but tries are a relative rarity in rugby. I obviously don't have figures, but it seems to me far more frequent that a game is won by a late penalty or drop kick than by a late try. As someone pointed out, if you're less than 3 points behind, the opposition have to be very careful of infringeing in their own half, less so if you're 4 or more points down.

As for the example given, at the time I felt SA made a mistake in kicking for the corner. They had a reasonable amount of time left on the clock (certainly too long for NZ to simply run down the clock IMO) to get back down th other end and create a scoring opportunity. Lest we forget Pollard had already banged over one drop goal, so he could conceivably have banged over another one had SA got into range. Against that is the fact that SA had made a fair amount of handling errors, etc. over the course of the match up to that point, the fact that NZ had hardly given away any penalties within range. Overall I just felt there was more chance that SA would be able to get down the right end of the field, and give themselves a shot at victory. But that's just my personal opinion, which is not worth very much.

Basically I would say: 5 points or fewer behind with more than 5-6 minutes left -> take the points.

I'd always take the points if the difference is six points or less, and there is enough time for the ball to be restarted. If teams know the opposition are only going for a try, they can risk giving away penalties by going in hard to turn over the ball. OTOH if a team has already kicked a penalty to reduce the deficit, the attacking team can string phases together because the defence can't afford to concede a penalty. Games often run long beyond 80 in these circumstances so it increases the time as well as the chance of scoring a try.

I have long been an advocate that a losing bonus point should be docked from the winner's tally (reducing them to three match points). If that were introduced the dynamic of the posts v corner decision would change, because it would matter to BOTH sides if the difference was seven or less. I don't like the situation where teams are happy to concede penalties when the score difference is about 12 with say eight minutes left, knowing the kicks will never be taken. Scoreboard pressure makes for exciting finishes!

There is also a psychological difference for the team defending a lead by 3 or less and a team with a lead of four or more. You feel much more at ease infringing knowing a penalty kick will not retake the lead for the opposition but you also don't have the pressure, particularly defending in your own half, that making a mistake can cost your team the match. Furthermore, the team behind on the scoreboard invariably lift their game knowing that they have to be the next ones to score. Whether that relieves their inhibitions and puts caution to the wind or whether it adds that vital bit of desperation, the attacking team can often make easier yards when the game is within their reach.

I don't think JDV's decision was wrong, but there is certainly a part of me that wants to have access to a parallel dimension where he did take the kick at goal just to see what would've happened next.

Alternatively, you could just watch the last twenty minutes and the successes we had running the ball from our half.

It's a South African thing, going for the try. I don't know when it started, as it's pretty recent, but most of the captains at CC and SXV level go for touch when it's a real fifty fifty

It's tempting to celebrate the team if they go for the try and get it, while castigating them if they fail, but sport is always more complicated.

I know Dallaglio thought he had Wales on toast when he turned down the points at Wembley in 1999 but we weren't a score ahead, and our failure to take three let Wales snatch the win with a late Scott Gibbs try.

Dallaglio wanted to kick Wales while they were down but we ended up with egg on our face. The professional decision would have been too go for goal.

Then again, at least there was something at stake. It's not always easy to get excited when a team taps, or kicks for touch, against a second or third tier side early in the game. It sends the message that the result isn't in any doubt and it's time to practice a few moves.

I admire a team prepared to take a risk for a bigger points reward when the game is still in the balance (and against competitive opposition). That doesn't mean I think they are right. I couldn't understand why Ireland turned down early shots at goal in their World Cup quarter-final match against Wales.

It's a hard balancing act for a captain because he doesn't just have to consider how well his team can execute, and what the defence can do. He also has to judge the referee.

In 2010, England lost the first summer tour Test to Australia by 27-17. We had such a dominant scrum that day, it was absurd. We got two penalty tries from it, which is some return at that level. The trouble was, each try took a huge chunk of time out of the game because Nigel Owens insisted on countless resets. Our lineout was a less secure option but it might have yielded faster results.

Martin Johnson was asked why England let Wilkinson kick so much when a dominant pack might have gone for tries. He pointed out that Wilkinson's penalties could tot up quickly and demoralize the opposition because they were constantly having to go behind their posts to watch him kick. That set a platform for running in tries later. He also noted that referees were not always on England's side - Andre Watson being a notable example - so retaining possession could be something of a lottery.

These are tough calls, always with pros and cons and the context the specific match, momentum etc. The record book will show JDV got it wrong on this occasion.

My personal view, (having watched what was a great match for the neutral) was that he should have gone for three. Five minutes is enough to gain territory and pressure the defence. A close call though.

Having spent 70 percent of the time in their own half, chances were SA wasn't guaranteed to get into the NZ red zone again with less than 6 minutes left after taking the penalty.

So in my view the right call was made.

Yeah agree. 'Without' the benefit of hindsight I was more concerned that the Boks kicked for the line and I would have agreed with the same had it been the AB's.

The point is taking the kick means you have to score twice- first kick the goal, then get back there and kick another as a minimum.

With 6 minutes to go and in ideal position, with possession, just gotta go for it. At least you wont look back and say you didnt have a chance, than say if you'd got the 3 then never saw the ball again.

Scoring from a line out 5m away is probably just as difficult as getting back there in 2-3 minutes from the kickoff.

My only comment with SA doing it is their game plan and player selection limits their options in this scenario relative to the AB's. They're not designed to win a match in the dying minutes.

No question in my mind - in that situation go for gold.

That's a bit harsh on SA TM. Not designed to win a match in the dying mins-we all know NZ are more versatile attack wise but with SA's rolling maul I dunno.

Biltong you summed up the situation well mate. I'd usually be a fan of the pot at goal first but context is everything.

I'm just saying that the 'find a way' thing isnt something SA excel at vs the ABs. Januiares? try in 09 the last time I recall a play that took the match away from us. For me its gotta go to a Habana or Le Roux type and by that stage theyre usually off the field.

The rolling maul they do well but its not a simple thing to do and its not as though its either on tap or not predictable. Things still have to go right and the bok pack isnt as formidable as it was. As it was the usual AB defence was enough to shut it down.

Still agree with them going for it but they need more options.

T'man, if you believe SA can't do a try from 5 meters out, how do you expect them to gain 80 meters from a kick off in 6 minutes?

The difference in going for broke and taking 3s is in the natural ability of the sides.  Simples.  There is or shouldn't be a blueprint.  The decision comes from the game dynamics.
If your team is in the comfortable driving seat - my idea is that's when you become even more beligerent and go for their jugular.  That shows respect for them and it drives the spirit of the team.  No team should expect mercy if the opponents have it in them to make the scoreline embarrassing.
If your side are clinging to a narrow victory, the clock is running out and the opposition are fighting back dangerously.  Then it's clear you don't have the force to impose yourself and it's best to become pragmatic - steal the 3 pointers wherever you can in general - BUT, if you're in a promising position to do more, then of course go for a try.  In general however, the win is more important than the risk IF you are not dominating a game and are just about keeping in front.

Glad to hear it sounds like the healing process has already begun.