Elfster
Dave Cowper (27)
On the back of various discussions on the refereeing, late game penalties, scrum penalties etc I just thought I ramble on about the psychology on the game of pressure, performance and penalties. the correlation of cause and effect, the chicken and egg...what comes first....
Most of the time when a side gets ‘dominance’ over another side they will start winning penalties...for example the Brumbies vs Cheetahs where the horsie’s dominant scrum earned them the winning penalty. However is it always the way that that is the natural order...a side gets dominance and thus penalties, or do sides get dominant or appear dominant by getting penalties. When a side gets a penalty they get possession and the imitative. From this , at least momentarily, they can control or dominate the opposing side. And as the side with possession more likely to get the next penalty. And I also think it is fair to say that if a side gets three consecutive penalties they will invariably get points.
But I am not totally sure what comes first – penalties then dominance or dominance then penalties. I guess both are quite natural and in most cases the difference is meaningless, but in some games you see an ‘unexplainable’ penalty given to one side merely due to them having possession or the momentum of a game suddenly shifting on the back of a few consecutive penalties. And in situations where the discipline of one side has not totally collapsed.
Perhaps it has something with the disposition of the ref. When I was reffing we were told to reward positive, attacking play, which could lead to the side not having the ball being unfairly penalised or forced to more strictly adhere to the rules of the game, whereas the side with the ball in hand was given more latitude. And I think, or perhaps in my case, if the team had the ball they wouldn’t do anything to lose it...thus we looked for issues on the side without the ball.
But I think sometimes this may lead to situations where the game does get to be influenced by various psychological factors rather than what is actually happening. A dominant side is awarded penalties that keep them dominant and more likely to win further penalties, whereas the opposing side has lost the ability to attain dominance through their actual play.
I am not saying that many games are affected with this, nor am I am giving any solutions, but just (in a rather convoluted way) trying to express what I occasionally see or trying to explain what I see. And most sides will play to exert dominance and reap the subsequent rewards, but sometimes I feel the rewards are offered first, which then gives them the dominance. And that then feeds the penalty cycle.
(The silly thread title was the best I could think of...and I stopped where I was as I was starting to confuse myself)
Most of the time when a side gets ‘dominance’ over another side they will start winning penalties...for example the Brumbies vs Cheetahs where the horsie’s dominant scrum earned them the winning penalty. However is it always the way that that is the natural order...a side gets dominance and thus penalties, or do sides get dominant or appear dominant by getting penalties. When a side gets a penalty they get possession and the imitative. From this , at least momentarily, they can control or dominate the opposing side. And as the side with possession more likely to get the next penalty. And I also think it is fair to say that if a side gets three consecutive penalties they will invariably get points.
But I am not totally sure what comes first – penalties then dominance or dominance then penalties. I guess both are quite natural and in most cases the difference is meaningless, but in some games you see an ‘unexplainable’ penalty given to one side merely due to them having possession or the momentum of a game suddenly shifting on the back of a few consecutive penalties. And in situations where the discipline of one side has not totally collapsed.
Perhaps it has something with the disposition of the ref. When I was reffing we were told to reward positive, attacking play, which could lead to the side not having the ball being unfairly penalised or forced to more strictly adhere to the rules of the game, whereas the side with the ball in hand was given more latitude. And I think, or perhaps in my case, if the team had the ball they wouldn’t do anything to lose it...thus we looked for issues on the side without the ball.
But I think sometimes this may lead to situations where the game does get to be influenced by various psychological factors rather than what is actually happening. A dominant side is awarded penalties that keep them dominant and more likely to win further penalties, whereas the opposing side has lost the ability to attain dominance through their actual play.
I am not saying that many games are affected with this, nor am I am giving any solutions, but just (in a rather convoluted way) trying to express what I occasionally see or trying to explain what I see. And most sides will play to exert dominance and reap the subsequent rewards, but sometimes I feel the rewards are offered first, which then gives them the dominance. And that then feeds the penalty cycle.
(The silly thread title was the best I could think of...and I stopped where I was as I was starting to confuse myself)
