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.

It can also be quite uplifting for a defence that successfully stops a team on their line when that team has turned down the opportunity of two points.

Impossible to answer (even for TVOC) but I'd love to know how many points Leeds have "lost" by refusing the two and then not getting a try. Nothing frustrates me more than when a penalty is refused and the ball is turned over a tackle or two later!

My recollection is the Leeds team of 2004 under Tony Smith started this trend of running penalties. That was then and this is now. that team was so superior to the rest of the league that it could afford to do that. No team since has, IMO, had such dominance.

I would say take the two every time but I think the new shift in thinking is about right.

Even in landslide victory or defeat?

I'm reminded of Alex Murphy's reaction to Paul Vautin turning down a kickable penalty while Saints were getting nilled by Wigan at Wembley. Let's just say that even though it would have had zero impact on the actual result, he wasn't best pleased at his captain choosing to run the ball on that occasion.

against the top teams i'm always glad to see a score posted as you expect a top notch defence unit trying to stop you scoring a try but i'd feel differently on friday if we didn't back ourselves against london on friday

Even if we lost by a point?