There is no misunderstanding, not on my part at least. I've explained at length why it was the wrong decision and what the safest option was. Yes, the fact he missed his man is proof he shouldn't have taken that option. He went away from a basic of RL defence when in fact holding a solid line would have worked best, a wall of defenders that could use the touchline if NZ went wide, or hold firm with George and Sam on the inside if they went direct or inside.

Shooting out with the intention of 'wrapping Johnson up' was never the best option. Absolutely not. And yes, like it or not the fact it failed is indeed proof you shouldn't rush out of the line unless you are 100%, guaranteed, nailed-on to make your tackle. Because that's exactly what happens when you do. Find me a coach who says otherwise.

You can try and make it sound like it was a desperate last-ditch option with a NZ try a given, but it wasn't. A 4 on 3 is easily defendable, certainly so close to the touchline, and there were men on the inside - and even if George wasn't in perfect position it was recoverable if NZ had gone inside with Sam easily close enough to react.

Simple fast in, hold and slide defence was by far the best option.

If you don’t understand the logical fallacy within your argument I cant help you.

The fact that we have now got to a situation where a try scored near the posts could have been pushed to the sideline, and a player who stepped inside Sinfield would have been tackled by players inside Sinfield had he not run out of the line (if they could have covered the inside ball, why couldnt they cover the step? the obvious answer is because they werent there to cover either) shows your inconcistancies.

The last kick was by Sinfield as the clock ticked over 78mins, which went straight down the middle of the park into the hands of RTS about 20/30m out.

At that point, even a kick dead in goal would have been preferable.

Sorry i meant the set before that.

The same applies from that kick though which Sinfield took wide and kicked back in to the centre, it wasnt a great closing set.

Both our last play options at the end seemed rushed rather than planned.

The sliding defence on Charnley's wing worked perfectly well in the first half.

If Sinfield doesn't rush out of the line, the chances are the Johnson moves the ball out wide and it becomes the winger/centres responsibility to defend the line, which they had done pretty well throughout the game.

Had they still scored, it also would have made the conversion a tougher one.

Hardly point proven, all 3 go up and it isn't Sinfield out on his own at all. As expected you claim that Sinfield must've told them to go too without having any knowledge just guessing even though Watkins has been shooting out like that all his career so far, as soon as Luke was tackled I was 100% certain that if the ball went to NZ's left that Watkins would be well out, he always is and I've seen it enough at Leeds with Sinfield staying a bit further back (like you recommend) and the gap between the two costing us.

With statements like
"It doesn't matter where Watkins and Charnley were" and
"Watkins and Charnley could've easily covered" a 3 on 2 overlap shows you up even more. They were "not sprinting hell for leather"? Funny how they too got from the tryline to over 11/13m out in one single pass and after one single step past Sinfield from Johnson, Watkins is a few yards past him looking backwards.

Could they have cut out a looped pass to the wing, unlikely as even Charnley was at least 10m plus away from the side line, Watkins even more and running forwards and a slight angle away from the touch line. The only thing to save that not happening would be for Johnson to make a mess of his pass.

With that chase out it went from a 4 on 3 Kiwi advantage to two 1 on 1's firstly with Sinfield and then secondly with George, unfortunately both got beaten, at least Sinfield tried his hardest to get there.

And you're struggling to comprehend what I've said. I said George needed to make more of an effort to get ACROSS, not up as their was no one on Johnson's right shoulder to mark. So your reply that it would leave George even less able to reach Johnson is incorrect.

Seen as though you've skipped this particular part from way back, I've previously mentioned Sinfield did make a mistake, that's clear.......but it was missing a tackle, not the decision to come out and that it was compounded by another error inside him.

Yes I've mentioned George, Sam, Watkins, Charnley AND Sinfield, that's because their the 5 closest defenders involved with the play we're debating. Hardly going to mention Hall, Cudjoe and Widdop movement in that play am I as their's really isn't relevant unlike others even though you believe "it doesn't matter where others were".

Having watched it again for the first time today,this is exactly how i see it

The defensive line is only as strong as your weakest man, at that point in time, it was George Burgess. The moment Sinfield & Watkins decided to get off the line quicker than Gurgess it made Johnson's mind up for him. The pass out wide became a risky play and the step inside Sinfield became obvious. If the outside three had got off the line at the same pace as Gurgess I think the best the kiwis could have hoped for was a try in the corner (something they hadn't looked like doing all game down that wing) and a difficult kick for the win. But that's sport, people make split second decisions in the heat of the moment sometimes they come off sometimes they don't. If Gurgess gets off the line with them, then they cut out both options, but he couldn't he was spent. Such a fine line between winning and losing!

I think if mcnamara would of used abblett it could of been a different result because a fresh pair of legs at the end in defence would of really helped IMO.

Precisely. The worst option was taken. Had it worked it would have been genius, but rushing out the line seldom does and is rarely the best option.

Look, it's been covered to death and is now being over-analysed to death. He took the wrong option, it's as simple as that. We can all see why he did it, but it was still the wrong option. He went too quickly and missed his tackle.

I'm not doing over point-for-point ad-nauseam. You think others are to blame for not covering his mistake. There may be a grain of truth to that but they should never have been put in that situation.

Got to agree, and with Burrow only playing 12 ineffective minutes, we basically chose to play them with 15 men. With the extra 36 tackles that we had to do it was inevitable that we would get tired at the end.

Whether you rate Ablett as an international standard player or not, he should have been on the field for some time in the 2nd half doing some tackling and giving some tired legs a break.

Roby can play 80 minutes. We don't need an inferior back up to come on and replace him for short period.

Were you actually at the game? I was and I called what was going to happen before the PTB - we were totally and utterly exposed. It doesn't look like that on TV but I assure you that was the case. NZ set it up well and we were suckered. Sinfield had to make a call because they were going to score if he didn't. The guy has played RL at elite level for 16 years or so and he made that rush for a reason - and it wasn't because he knows less about the game than you or because he was confident the defence could cope with a simple drift or because he the sort of player who makes rash decisions - it was pure need.

The Kiwi's pressurised Widdop for his kick but it was the unpressured kick by Sinfield that was poor

But as I said history now

Shall I tell you what the Australian Assistant Coach (and good friend of Sinfield's) said about it when asked? Let's just say he didn't agree with you. The poor kick and Sinfield rushing out of defence. He also said the best option was for NZ to go wide to 'the one player on the pitch who never misses a tackle - the touchline', and to the wide defenders who had coped pretty well all game. He knows more about RL than Sinfield, me, you and all of RLFans combined. Certainly you. I'll take his opinion over yours and pretty much anyone else.

It's simply a golden rule in defence - you don't rush out. It doesn't matter that NZ had a 1 man overlap. It really is that simple.