And?

So you are only allowed to create try scoring opportunities in the oppositions 20 ?

RL = Simple game

You have the ball = you are trying to score

You dont have the ball = you are trying to stop the other team score

I'm with Starbug here.

Make a break from your own ingoal on a zero tackle, past the defensive line, step the fullback, daylight in front of you....then wait on the 10m line, let a covering defender get you, the crowd go absolutely mental

"What the f' was he doing, he could have scored?"

After the game Rod Studd brings it up and the player replies with.

"Well, i didn't want to score on a zero tackle, i wanted us to build some pressure"

No, you dont get it, just because pundits want to try to appear clever dosent make them so

Niether does it make anybody who agree's with them appear clever either

EGGGSACTLY, again

Entirely missing the point.

Imagine you're starting possession five metres from your own line. What kind of plays are you going to run?
Are you going to look to move the ball across the pitch? Are you going to look to offload in contact? These have a good chance of making a break leading to a score, but also risk losing possession.
Are you looking for simple plays and quick PTBs? These have little chance of making a break and leading to a score, but will help maintain possession so enable a kick for territory or to contest later in the tackle count.

Playing the second option was what Phil Clarke was talking about.

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.

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