There are lots of things that get counted as errors that a coach wouldn't pin on the player or even consider a negative play.
Opposition kicks into the into goal and you bat it dead or touch in goal = error.
Opposition passes in to you (Toby vs the Roosters) = error
Run over sideline/dead ball line or deliberately throw the ball over the touch line to end the game when leading = error
Player trying to offload on the last tackle (result of error or being tackled is identical) = error
Also - spine players get off easy and wingers get boned with the way errors get counted. **** pass at the winger's toes = winger's fault.
I asked AI, this is its reply.
An ineffective tackle in the NRL is a defensive action where a player initiates contact but fails to stop the ball carrier's momentum, allowing an offload, a line break, or significant extra meters. It is distinct from a missed tackle (no contact) and is often classified as a weak tackle where the attacker escapes or continues moving
Yeah I understand, but when someone collates them together and says "17 ineffective tackles" does that mean there were 17 times where the Tigers did one of these things, or 17 times where an individual Sharks player was attributed a stat? Could be three guys getting a stat on the same offload. i.e. it's not as bad as "17" makes it sound.
Also as a player if really sucks to get attributed with a miss when you are around the legs and the dudes up top didn't wrap up the ball. I got flogged in fitness once for making 36 tackles and missing 4 (anyone with 10% or higher got a flogging. All of these were legs tackles where another player didn't wrap but the ball. From my point of view I missed 0 and a teammate let me down.
So 17 ineffective tackles sounds to me like there were a handful of times the Tigers offloaded or whatever, and sometimes a Shark was guilty of not wrapping up the ball and other times a stat monkey just gave someone else a stat even though they did their job.
