The fallacy of the Bools 9 missing points

 The moment the Bools took the points on offer, the game changed. The Bools, more than a penalty ahead go on defence.....as SA teams do so often......and the Brumbies score a try. When the Bools made that kick they forced the Brumbies to attack

The fallacy is  the notion that the Bools turned down 9 points. They turned down 3 points, three times. Had they kicked any of those foregone shots at goal.....the Brumbies would have been better positioned to attack. Perhaps if they had tried the corner kick a fourth time, a try would have resulted or the territory stranglehold would have continued. 

The only thing we know for sure is after kicking the penalty, the Bools lost the game. Kicking it earlier may not have changed that result.

i blame the loss on them not going for the points when they were on offer, but maybe they were a bit skittish on morne who had missed a few which were by his standards piss easy???
hard to predict the outcome using what if rules cos it was such a tight affair, but the numbers suggest that going for points was the smart thing to do.

Moz Jake certainly doesnt agree with you. The Brumbies were conceding penalties because of the pressure they were under in the scrum and elswhere. 

Brumbies boss Jake White says the Bulls' decisions to decline three goal-kicking opportunities in the final quarter of the match assisted his team in securing a 26-23 victory in their Super Rugby semi-final at Lotus Versfeld, Pretoria on Saturday.(Please note Dr Moz)
 
"The players said they grew a bit of a leg on the basis that they weren't going for poles, it almost I suppose helped us a bit because we kept saying 'they are leaving the door open'," White revealed after the match.

"I don't know what the reason for that was, considering that they took (Chiliboy) Ralepelle off and they had a new hooker, and then you have the best goal kicker in the competition on the field." (Please note ou maaaike)

These points were echoed by Mallet and co in the post match summary.