OPTA Stats V Wakefield : Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:19 pm  

Player: Metres - Carries (MT/Carry) - Tackles - Misses (Efficiency %) - Errors - Penalties Leeds: 1471 - 196 (7.51) - 311 - 19 (94%) - 16 - 9 *10 Wakefield: 1299 - 178 (7.30) - 253 - ? (??%) - 8 - 5 **4 Webb: 79 - 21 (3.76) - 6 - 1 (86%) - 0 - 1 Donald: 45 - 7 (6.43) - 4 - 0 (100%) - 1 - 0 Smith: 91 - 10 (9.10) - 20 - 2 (91%) - 2 - 0 Senior: 179 - 17 (10.53 ) - 11 - 0 (100%) - 2 - 2 Hall: 149 - 11 (13.55 ) - 5 - 1 (83%) - 2 - 0 McGuire: 85 - 16 (5.31) - 9 - 2 (82%) - 3 - 0 Burrow: 73 - 12 (6.08 ) - 18 - 2 (90%) - 0 - 0 Leuluai: 63 - 6 (10.50 ) - 21 - 1 (95%) - 0 - 0 Buderus: 52 - 9 (5.78 ) - 18 - 3 (86%) - 0 - 0 Jones-Buchanan: 72 - 10 (7.20) - 25 - 1 (96%) - 0 - 3 Ablett: 68 - 8 (8.50) - 34 - 2 (94%) - 2 - 1 *** 2 Lauitiiti: 103 - 11 (9.36) - 14 - 0 (100%) - 0 - 0 Sinfield: 88 - 15 (5.87) - 33 - 1 (97%) - 1 - 0 Diskin: 42 - 8 (5.25) - 19 - 0 (100%) - 2 - 0 Worrall: 15 - 4 (3.75) - 15 - 1 (94%) - 0 - 0 Peacock: 159 - 17 (9.35) - 34 - 0 (100%) - 1 - 1 Burgess: 108 - 14 (7.71) - 25 - 2 (93%) - 0 - 1 The good news is I have no problem with the awarding of Try Assists this week: 1 - Ablett (Jones-Buchanan try) 1 - Hall (Burrow try) 1 - Burrow (Lauitiiti try) 1 - Senior (Burrow try) 1 - McGuire (Donald try) The not so good news: Neither Leeds nor Wakefield had a player sent to the sin-bin according to the Opta stats. * - Leeds conceded one more penalty than Opta are reporting. *** - Likewise Ablett is only showing 1 penalty when he clearly was spoken to twice having been marched ten for dissent. ** - Wakefield conceded one fewer penalty than Opta are reporting. How did Lauitiiti not knock on (error) when he should have scored. I've adjusted the figures starred and in red to reflect the actual totals Previous week's stats: Hull V Leeds Leeds V Bradford Harlequins V Leeds Leeds V Huddersfield Les Catalans V Leeds [url=http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=412998&highlight=]Leeds V Hull [/url]

Player: Metres - Carries (MT/Carry) - Tackles - Misses (Efficiency %) - Errors - Penalties Leeds: 1471 - 196 (7.51) - 311 - 19 (94%) - 16 - 9 *10 Wakefield: 1299 - 178 (7.30) - 253 - ? (??%) - 8 - 5 **4 Webb: 79 - 21 (3.76) - 6 - 1 (86%) - 0 - 1 Donald: 45 - 7 (6.43) - 4 - 0 (100%) - 1 - 0 Smith: 91 - 10 (9.10) - 20 - 2 (91%) - 2 - 0 Senior: 179 - 17 (10.53 ) - 11 - 0 (100%) - 2 - 2 Hall: 149 - 11 (13.55 ) - 5 - 1 (83%) - 2 - 0 McGuire: 85 - 16 (5.31) - 9 - 2 (82%) - 3 - 0 Burrow: 73 - 12 (6.08 ) - 18 - 2 (90%) - 0 - 0 Leuluai: 63 - 6 (10.50 ) - 21 - 1 (95%) - 0 - 0 Buderus: 52 - 9 (5.78 ) - 18 - 3 (86%) - 0 - 0 Jones-Buchanan: 72 - 10 (7.20) - 25 - 1 (96%) - 0 - 3 Ablett: 68 - 8 (8.50) - 34 - 2 (94%) - 2 - 1 *** 2 Lauitiiti: 103 - 11 (9.36) - 14 - 0 (100%) - 0 - 0 Sinfield: 88 - 15 (5.87) - 33 - 1 (97%) - 1 - 0 Diskin: 42 - 8 (5.25) - 19 - 0 (100%) - 2 - 0 Worrall: 15 - 4 (3.75) - 15 - 1 (94%) - 0 - 0 Peacock: 159 - 17 (9.35) - 34 - 0 (100%) - 1 - 1 Burgess: 108 - 14 (7.71) - 25 - 2 (93%) - 0 - 1 The good news is I have no problem with the awarding of Try Assists this week: 1 - Ablett (Jones-Buchanan try) 1 - Hall (Burrow try) 1 - Burrow (Lauitiiti try) 1 - Senior (Burrow try) 1 - McGuire (Donald try) The not so good news: Neither Leeds nor Wakefield had a player sent to the sin-bin according to the Opta stats. * - Leeds conceded one more penalty than Opta are reporting. *** - Likewise Ablett is only showing 1 penalty when he clearly was spoken to twice having been marched ten for dissent. ** - Wakefield conceded one fewer penalty than Opta are reporting. How did Lauitiiti not knock on (error) when he should have scored. I've adjusted the figures starred and in red to reflect the actual totals Previous week's stats: Hull V Leeds Leeds V Bradford Harlequins V Leeds Leeds V Huddersfield Les Catalans V Leeds [url=http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=412998&highlight=]Leeds V Hull [/url]

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:23 pm  

Errors and penalties show why despite a clear advantage in metres the game was as close as it was.

: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:14 am  

Nice bench figures for Peacock.

With regard to Ablett, when he was marched back had Wakey already been awarded the penalty. I can't fully recollect due to senility/screaming kids/moaning wife interfering with my enjoyment of the game.

: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:22 am  

finglas wrote:

Nice bench figures for Peacock.

With regard to Ablett, when he was marched back had Wakey already been awarded the penalty. I can't fully recollect due to senility/screaming kids/moaning wife interfering with my enjoyment of the game.

Yeh it was after drew's impression of ronaldo!!

: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:05 am  

finglas wrote:

Nice bench figures for Peacock.

With regard to Ablett, when he was marched back had Wakey already been awarded the penalty. I can't fully recollect due to senility/screaming kids/moaning wife interfering with my enjoyment of the game.

The penalty for obstruction was against Peacock, apparently for lifting his leg, the penalty for dissent and 10 metres conceded that followed was against Ablett for laughing, again apparently.

These are sometimes missed in the stats (as could be the case here) but they are most definitely double penalties.

The one in the first half was a single penalty though as the original offence that Ablett objected to was the awarding of a knock on against Smith.

: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:10 am  

tvoc wrote:

These are sometimes missed in the stats (as could be the case here) but they are most definitely double penalties.

Well I did not know that, I just thought that it was 'an extension' of the originally penalty.

: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:19 am  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

Well I did not know that, I just thought that it was 'an extension' of the originally penalty.

Perhaps I should re-phrase my last comment - they are most definitely double penalties according to my unofficial rule book that I carry around in my head.

Peter Smith of the YEP agreed with me that the count was 10 - 4 to Wakefield, although I'm not sure if his endorsement is altogether a good thing or not but I'll pretend it is here.

Leeds have conceded a few additional penalties for dissent and this is the first time I can recall it queering up the count.

: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:23 am  

I have to say I didn't think the 10m for dissent counted as another penalty. In my world the only penalty for dissent was the first half one after the Smith steal/knock-on, where what I think would have been a scrum to Wakey became a penalty.

I might be completely wrong though, as I've never actually read any ruling on it, I just assumed, which makes an ass of u and me.

: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:28 am  

El Diablo wrote:

I have to say I didn't think the 10m for dissent counted as another penalty. In my world the only penalty for dissent was the first half one after the Smith steal/knock-on, where what I think would have been a scrum to Wakey became a penalty.

I might be completely wrong though, as I've never actually read any ruling on it, I just assumed, which makes an ass of u and me.

In that case I'm the U, cos that would have been my interpretation as well.

: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:32 am  

El Diablo wrote:

I have to say I didn't think the 10m for dissent counted as another penalty. In my world the only penalty for dissent was the first half one after the Smith steal/knock-on, where what I think would have been a scrum to Wakey became a penalty.

I might be completely wrong though, as I've never actually read any ruling on it, I just assumed, which makes an ass of u and me.

My interpretation comes from the referee blowing his whistle to award the original penalty and raising his arm, then blowing his whistle again and raising his arm again 10 metres upfield/downfield (depending which way your heading) after marching the team for dissent.

As I said above I've consistently used that method to count penalties without it managing to queer the counts before.

Hopefully they'll be a referee along soon to sort this out..... as long as it's not Ganson.