Injury time is killing rugby
Roar Pro
By Undercover Prop, 2 Jul 2008 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
Related coverage
After the latest Wallabies Test match, we can all agree that it was certainly one of the more boring rugby Tests that we’ve had to endure.
And it seems that it doesn’t matter whether you were at Homebush or watching at home on television, the game had too many stoppages and didn’t live up to the expectations of an international rugby game.
So why all the stoppages?
I don’t think that the reversion back to the old laws can be totally blamed for this. It seems to me that the problem was the same as it has been in all grades and levels of rugby for many years. We continue to stop the game every time there is an injury.
Regardless of what the injury is, or where it takes place, or what position the player is, the referee blows his whistle to stop the game. The trainers come on and all the players have a rest.
The referee goes over to the injured player to see how they are doing, and then once they are ok, he starts the game again. This can sometimes only take 20 seconds, but more often than not it takes around a minute.
In some cases this is not the case, and if the winger is injured on the other side of the field, the referee will not stop for him.
But the other players on the injured team will be aware of this and if, for example, there is going to be a scrum packed, then the prop or hooker will go down injured until the winger is ok.
The frontrower will most likely say he has a sore neck, and no referee will contest that a front rower must continue to pack a scrum with a sore neck, unless he wants to expose himself to being sued for negligence should something happen.
And so we are left with these continuous painful stoppages in play where nothing takes place except for some bad music being played through the stadium speakers.
Boring, boring, boring.
Let’s compare this with two other codes, the NRL and the AFL.
In the NRL, unless it is a serious injury, the play does not stop. The player is taken behind the play and fixed up, or as they have the interchange system, they leave the field with the option to return once they are better.
Even if a player has to play the ball and cannot do so, they simply take the ball off him, someone else plays the ball and the game continues.
AFL is much the same. With the unlimited interchange, it makes it much easier.
Unless it is a very serious injury, the game doesn’t stop.
The player gets himself off the field to be treated as soon as he can and as a spectator you barely even notice what’s happened.
So what is the answer for union?
Even though the common rule between the NRL and the AFL is the interchange, i don’t think this is the answer for union. It would totally change the dynamics of the game, particularly in key positions around the field like tight-head prop and fly-half.
When the Wallabies play the All Blacks, I want to see Matt Giteau versus Dan Carter for 80 minutes. I don’t want to see it for 20 minutes, then someone else versus Carter for a bit, then someone else, and so on.
If an interchange system was introduced into union, then it would have to be very limited to a maximum of, say, ten a game. Otherwise, it would change rugby as we know it.
The answer is simply to make a change in the training and thinking of all rugby referees in all grades of rugby, instill an attitude that the game will not stop unless it absolutely has to (something that the Southern Hemisphere refs are starting to get their heads around, but the Northern Hemisphere refs are still way off).
Assuming that the injury is not a head, neck, or spine injury, then if the player can still walk or limp, which nine times out of ten they can, then they should be directed to get treatment behind play or on the sideline so the game can continue.
If a player refuses to do so, then a free kick should be awarded to the other team.
The same if a frontrower is clearly faking an injury and claiming that he cannot scrummage – then award a free kick to the other side.
It would be amazing how quickly some players would recover, and how much quicker the game would be.
Until something is done about the amount of stoppages for injury, then regardless of how many ELVs or other rule changes are introduced, the game will continue to suffer from endless and useless stoppages in play.
This will continue to hold back the game as a spectacle and it will lose more fans to the free-flowing AFL and NRL.
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (10) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (27)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
sambobly said | July 2nd 2008 @ 7:52am | Report comment
I think this is a bit harsh. I believe that the injury time stoppages are the least of our worries. I think the major problem with the game on saturday was the old laws. Thousands of penalties were given and this is what slowed the game down so much. Short arms allow for a much quicker return to play then penalties do.
Also, I think player safety is THE most important thing in the game at all levels. The thing I hate most is when a physio runs on to the field and sits with the injured player as the play goes on. It puts the physio and the player at risk of further (quite serious) injury from unexpected hits and so forth.
Phil said | July 2nd 2008 @ 9:08am | Report comment
I agree. Apart from neck injuries there should be no injury time. Unfit teams abuse it and this game should seperate the men from the mice.
Spiro Zavos said | July 2nd 2008 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
sambobly has a valid point in referring to player safety. There will be hell to play from compensation lawyers if an injured player is left unattended while play goes on. There is also the matter of the scrum being properly manned, too, when a prop goes down. I think referees should exercise some discretion. If players seem to be going down deliberately, as the Cheetahs did a couple of years ago at the SFS, they should sin-bin someone for violating the spirit of the game.
Most time is wasted in taking kicks at goal. Kickers are supposed to have only 40 seconds for this task but referees never enforce this. If a team is behind and running out of time, it’s amazing how quickly the kick at goal can be taken. Why not all the time? I’d actually stop the clock when the penalty is awarded and start it again when the kick is taken. I reckon this would add a couple of minutes of extra play, especially when England is playing.
DaniE said | July 2nd 2008 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
That’s a terrific point Spiro about the kicks for goal. However while watching rugby games on TV, it seems that the broadcaster does its best to cram at least one TV advertisement into this pause. It annoys me no end, and at the expense of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I wonder if it’s a subtle move towards the American Football style coverage where every break must occassion a TV commercial!
Sledgeandhammer said | July 2nd 2008 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
There is no doubt that rugby players use tactical injuries to waste time when under pressure (the Wallabies do this all the time). Rather than not taking the injury seriously, the solution is to follow soccer’s lead and enforce the injured player from the field (with neck injuries, the player clearly must not move).
I can guarantee the number of players going down injured will decrease. The second concept worth considering is stoppage time, particularly as we get so little rugby per test match. I guess test match rugby is very, very tough, but you just don’t see the same number of injury stoppages in super 14 or club rugby.
However, I do agree with Sam, the old laws definitely lead to the majority of stoppages in the test match, not injuries.
Yikes said | July 2nd 2008 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
Spiro – while I agree completely with your argument and suggestion, you are wrong in that kickers actually have 60 seconds to kick the goal, and this starts from when the kicking tee arrives:
Law 9.B.1 (e) The kicker must take the kick within one minute from the time the kicker has indicated an intention to kick. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within the minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again.
jules said | July 2nd 2008 @ 11:46pm | Report comment
Quote Spiro: “Kickers are supposed to have only 40 seconds for this task but referees never enforce this. ”
Actual law: If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal.
If you have 6 kicks at goal in a half, you could conceivably have 6 extra minutes at the end of the half, plus injury time. A half could last up to 50 minutes.
Injury law: The referee may stop play for not more than one minute so that an injured player can be treated, or for any other permitted delay.
The referee may allow play to continue while a medically trained person treats an injured player in the playing area or the player may go to the touchline for treatment.
If a player is seriously injured and needs to be removed from the field of play, the referee has the discretion to allow the necessary time to have the injured player removed from the field-of-play.
If a player is injured and continuation of play would be dangerous, the referee must blow the whistle immediately.
Allowing play to go on when a player is injured is allowing one team an advantage over the other in terms of numbers. If a winger goes down injured and the opposing team flash the ball out to that side and score a try, wouldn’t you feel aggrieved that the ref didn’t stop play to allow your defenders to organise themselves properly?
I’m not saying that you should stop the game for every injury but you need to have a good feel for the game to decide when not to stop the play. Some referees are better than others at it and it is something that goes unnoticed until a referee stops the game for every injury.
Dave74 said | July 3rd 2008 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
What about the tactic introduced in recent years of “prop forward interchange”. That is one that irks me. I like the old school idea of the 15 who start the game play the 80 minutes unless injured (replacements should be allowed for injury only). I also don’t like that at every stoppage you see 3 or 4 trainers from both teams run on the field so that instructions can be given to players. The only time “trainers” should be allowed on the field is when a try is scored. If there is an injury the team doctor or physio should attend the player – no other trainers needed.
Mark H said | July 4th 2008 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
If you cant get up, get off. I think an interchange law should be introduced like league. The those lazy buggers can get dragged.
matta said | July 5th 2008 @ 11:32am | Report comment
if it were me, I would allow Front Rowers to interchange once a half.
yeah there are genuine injuries but there are bucket loads that are really us fatties (I am one) needing rest.