Let me sketch a slightly different end to the weekend’s St George-Wests cliff-hanger. Let’s imagine the game played with a slight rule change, to the effect that any time the ball is not in play the clock does not run.
The Tigers have surged down the right touchline, kicked ahead, only to see the ball made dead by the Dragons. There are twenty seconds to go. What now?
Well, with our new rule one thing that does not happen is what did happen on Saturday night; the Dragons do not start celebrating with time still on the clock.
Instead, the Tigers take up their positions for receiving the goal-line dropout but now with the obvious possibility of setting themselves for a leveling field goal.
The Dragons have an interesting choice. Do they kick long? This would maximize the distance of any field goal attempt. Then again, Marshall has been kicking 50-metre plus dropouts all night so a long restart might simply present Benji with a free and uncontested shot at taking the game to extra-time.
So, with Marshall in position, say, in the middle of the field, perhaps St George should kick towards either touch line. But this is risky; kick the ball out on the full and Wests have a shot at penalty goal from in front of the posts to win.
Perhaps a better tactic would be to kick short and then contest the drop of the ball, thus making any field goal attempt much more rushed and pressured.
But there are risks here as well; a fluffed short dropout might fail to go ten metres and, again, result in a penalty. And if the Tigers field it cleanly close to the line there might actually be time for them to run two plays before the siren.
As the rules stand, this mother of all grandstand finishes is denied to us; the Dragons simply ignore the clock, start congratulating themselves, and rather than a game of 80 minutes we get a game of 79 minutes and 40 seconds.
Time-wasting is a problem in rugby league, rugby union and soccer football. In league we have an array of ridiculous band-aid solutions.
The circus that ensues around the packing of scrums when one team wants to get on with it and the other doesn’t is plain silly.
Worse still, the thirty second time limit before line dropouts is completely arbitrary and probably has the opposite effect than the one intended. Rather than making teams take dropouts quickly it encourages them to use the full length of time allowed.
In fact, teams now routinely stand around taking a breather before goal line dropouts and wait for the referee to tell them when time is up, a classic case of the unintended consequence.
While not completely absent, time-wasting is very difficult in other sports where rules don’t allow it.
For example, although I’m no great fan of the sport, extraordinary last-second thrillers happen quite regularly in basketball because the clock simply does not run when the ball is not in play. The game must be played down to the final second, sometimes fractions of a second.
This is essentially also true in Australian rules. In fact, the example here is even more interesting because the changes to AFL time-keeping are fairly recent and offer a clear solution to the time-wasting problem in other football codes.
In essence, the AFL rule makers decided to nominate the number of minutes per quarter of actual football they wanted.
At the time, I remember thinking that 20 minutes per quarter seemed a bit skinny. But, of course, stopping the clock for all stoppages in play resulted in not much difference to actual game running time.
The beauty of the change, though, was that it meant no advantage could be gained from slow kick-ins after behinds were scored nor from getting up slowly before contesting restart bounces.
I struggle to see why this shouldn’t be the case in rugby league.
To begin with, the clock should stop as soon as the ball is signaled out by touch judges and not start again until the ball is fed into the scrum.
The same goes for the moment the whistle is blown for knock-ons, penalties, tries and when the ball is made dead in-goal. Once a try is scored, for example, time should not start again until the next kick-off.
Under this system it would still be possible to penalise teams for slow play if we wanted to. Referees could award penalties against teams that took too long to form a scrum or restart from a goal line dropout.
Goal kickers could take as much or as little time as we allowed them to, with the obvious difference that no advantage would be gained from even the most elaborate or elongated pre-kick routine.
Apart from the obvious, this system would have the advantage of completely relieving referees from any time-keeping responsibilities. They wouldn’t need to hurry people up or signal time-off and time-on, something that presently happens in a totally haphazard and inconsistent fashion.
But the killer point here, I think, is that time wasting robs fans. When soccer goal-keepers preen themselves endlessly before taking goal kicks or when league teams decide to ‘run the clock down’ by taking a shot at goal, they are cheating us, the spectators.
Time wasting also takes the pressure off players. It gives them an easy out and if there is something common to all sports, it is that the most thrilling moments happen when players are forced to act under pressure. This is what we pay to see.
When St George flatly refused to restart play last Saturday night, they avoided having to think their way through a potentially intriguing and explosive final act. A cliché, yes, but the game was the loser.
Let’s decide how much football makes a game of rugby league. Let’s begin with a number, say two halves of 30 minutes, and see how it goes. My understanding of the research in this area is that halves of 30 ball-in-play minutes would deliver more football than we currently get.
But if it’s too much, make it less. Maybe 25 or 28 is the right number. Surely we are adult enough to see that there is nothing magical or sacred about the number 40?
This kind of rule change would also improve both union and soccer, a sport that continues in the 21st century to be dogged by controversies over playing time.
But for all of us, regardless of code, football fans would see many more hair raising finishes, and players would have to think their way through pressure more often, because time wasting would simply be much, much harder to do.
Michael Gard
Roar Rookie
Sure, but I'm not talking about keeping the players out there any longer. I agree that if we kept at 80 minutes with time out for everything the game would be too long. This is why the AFL reduced the official lengths of quarters down from 25 minutes (I think) to 20 minutes. I don't necessarily want the game to go any longer. I just don't want the players manipulating the length of the game. So let's halves of 30 minutes or similar or 25. It's not beyond us to work out the right length of time.
Michael Gard
Roar Rookie
Thanks Bruce, I agree, the adding time business is still not really working in soccer. Don't know if you saw David Moyes, the Everton coach in the English Premier League, explode when time was called. His point was that his team was on the attack looking for a winning goal in extra time when the referee blew for full time without adding any time at all for substitutions that were made during the extra-time period. He carried on like a ham sandwich but he had a point.
Bruce Walkley
Guest
Spot on, Michael. League is in the dark ages on this one. The fact that the Tigers were denied their right to receive the ball from a line drop-out because the clock was still running is absurd. They might well have scored a try under the posts from the drop-out. The clock should stop after every score, every time the ball goes out of play, and whenever the referee pulls the game up for disciplinary or injjury reasons. Time re-starts when the scrum is fed, or the line drop-out is taken, or when the referee gives a signal when he considers a player taking a shot for goal, or a tap-kick, is ready to proceed. That way both teams, and the fans, get their full 40 minutes each way. It's a much better system than the way soccer does it, by adding time on at the end of each half, which is very haphazard.
Cugel
Roar Rookie
We'd have to sit through all that anyway, except perhaps more of it, if we called time off for everything. "Shot clocks" for various things might be a useful compromise, just take a bit of fine tuning. Time off after a try was experimented with in the 1980s, unfortunately during hot conditions. So the extra playing time, and extra time just out in the sun meant it didn't go down too well. Abandoned after just one round I think.
oikee
Guest
If your worried about time out for kicks, maybe you have a point. Once the try is given, time goes off, and restarts when he blows time on for the kick restart of play at the halfway.. No other time-outs needed.We only get 10 interchanges i think, so players get fatique after 40 minutes. We also dont stop long for a scrum, i always see the ref tell the players to pack, plus they have the option to pack a scrum and call time. This could also be looked at, i hear murmors now.
Rob C
Guest
If you want an option do what they do in Soccer. Have time added to the end of the game for time wasting (as oppossed to injury time). There could be say up to 5m added to a game for time wasted at dropouts / getting to scrums / taking penalties etc. Just a thought and would think that it would add excitement to a game especially if a team thinks they are being dudded from deliberate time wasting. In this scenario there probably would have been 2-3m added to the Sat game for dropouts taken, which would have chewed up game time.
Gareth
Guest
I think at the very least, there should be a conclusion to a game. If there's still time on the clock and a pending action to be taken, then even if time runs out, that action needs to be taken. I'm right with you on disliking the ridiculous spectacle of watching two teams standing on the field with 30 seconds to go watching the clock run down. We don't rule that a conversion attempt or penalty kick/tap after the siren is null and void, so why should a scrum or drop-out be treated any differently?
st penguin
Guest
Ha ha, Ive seen the Soward dance so many times I think Im used to it now. As to your suggestion about stopping the clock. You have to account for the extra toll that would have on the players. At a guess, it may add another 10 to 20 minutes to actual playing time. Perhaps someone else has the stats for amount of time the ball is actually in play during an 80 minute game.
Michael Gard
Roar Rookie
Interesting suggestion. Probably sensible. Doesn't quite solve me wanting to throw something at the screen every time Soward does his dance. I guess I would probably want to ask why only the last 5 minutes.
st penguin
Guest
As a dragons fan I breathed a huge sigh of relief when Darius through the ball away, but I can still see your point. Perhaps NRL could implement a system where the clock stops when the ball goes out of play - but only for the last 5 minutes of the game?
Michael Gard
Roar Rookie
Fair enough Ken. I am a sensitive soul. Um, not sure I follow you. The situation I'm talking about is exactly as it applies in AFL. If we've had 30 minutes of play then time is up... there is no more time to waste. At the heart of this is a point about the ability of teams - when it suits them - to take time off the clock.I can see the alternative point of view which is to say "ok, we now have 40 minutes per half and this gives us plenty of time for a fair amount of football plus all the other non-football stuff that happens. What's the big deal?' But the problem with this argument is that the time used up by certain non ball-in-play periods (referees talking to players, blokes with the different kicking routines etc etc etc) can be manipulated by the players. And the worst thing is that they do it just when the game is getting exciting. Players time waste in order to take the excitement out of the game. If you're a player on a team leading by a point with a small amount of time to go, what you absolutely do not want is any more excitement. You want to kill the game. This is why soccer players dribble the ball into the corner and try to hold it there in the dying seconds. Boring as hell but it's an easy out for them. Why should we make it easy for players to cop out like this? The AFL have a really nice system now and the important point is that it will always be in someone's interest to keep playing, particularly if it's tight. The fear of stretching the game to three hours like American football could, I think, be easily managed.
Ken
Guest
I think you're being a bit sensitive Michael. Rob C did accuse you of being a Wests fan and I can see how that would be insulting... otherwise though he has discussed the scenario you put forward. As your opening line requested he imagined that it was the same situation with a rule change and I think he's right about the effect this change would have had on the game. In the broader sense I can see where you are coming from with your 'ball in play' targets but I think this actually skews further into the realms of regulated time-wasting that you are railing against. Does this mean that if we have already had already had our 30 mins of play time and there's 2 minutes to go that the team in the lead can waste as much time as they like?
Ken
Guest
That's simply not true - are we talking about the same incident? Boyd puts the ball down cleanly and then has a couple of air swings with his foot while trying to play the ball. He looked a bit silly, no question, but the ruling on this for a long time has been that as long as they go through the motions of playing the ball (and haven't lost control of the ball, kicking it forward, sideways etc) it's OK.
Michael Gard
Roar Rookie
Why is is so difficult to get League fans to read a simple article and talk about the idea in the article? Rob C, champ, I'm not a tigers fan. Promise. Really. And yes, maybe in the situation on Saturday night Boyd might have run the ball instead of throwing it dead. Sure. No problem. But for the sake of the argument, couldn't you just imagine that I'm not a disgruntled Tigers fan and that Boyd was trapped in the in-goal with 20 seconds to go? Couldn't you just go with me on this one?. I'm glad Saints won, actually. They've been the best team all year. Fair dues to them. Hope they win. But actually, I don't care all that much. What this article is about is the crazy, arbitrary and, sometimes, very unfair time management system league fans have to put up with. Does anyone here actually have an opinion about this??
Mr Cool
Guest
Ooops Ken. it's been classed as not playing the ball in 90% of the times it's happened. (at least)
Ken
Guest
You're clutching at straws here. Even McCallum from the judiciary pointed out that they debated for 45 mins before giving Smith a grade 1 charge so it's hardly an indictment on the on-ground officials that they came up with a different decision in the 30 seconds they had. Also, it was just a charge, if they were to fight it I reckon they would have had better than 50-50 of getting off (never going to happen for a no-suspension chage in grand final week of course). It would have hurt like hell but even in slow motion it was hard to make a case he did anything wrong. As for the Darius Boyd one, the consensus for a very long time has been that actual contact with the ball is not necessary as long as you go through the motions of playing the ball. That hasn't been a 'turnover in every other match of the season', it hasn't even been a turnover for any match in a decade or more.
Rob C
Guest
You have got to be kidding..... I am sick of Tigers supportes or those pretending not to be Tigers supporters for arguments sake whinging about being hard done by... GET OVER IT!!! If you want to talk scenarios you left out the key outcome and the one which would have occurred if your rule was in place. Darius Boyd would have held the ball rather than throwing it dead. The players would have run from dummy half and the game would have been over after tackle two. There would have been no chance of a field goal as there would have been no dropout to start with! All I have been hearing is how the Tigers have been treated so poorly. How they should have got that penalty for the accidental knees... Well cry me a river. For the whole finals campaign all supporters have been there and seen the Tigers benefit from suspect refereeing decisions both in the Roosters game and in the game against the Raiders. The Tigers and their supporters need to realise that if you are relying on referees and their decisions to get you home in games than the law of averages will tell you that you will lose more than you win. Luck can only get you so far! On top of that and more importantly the referees got the decision absolutely correct. Penalty for kneeing can only be awarded if the kneeing was intentional. There is no way that this was the case. Careless is only used in high tackle instances. Tigers supporters need to learn the rules before becoming armchair experts. The referees have a hard enough time as it is without being crucified for making correct decisions as well! Now that I have finished my rant all I have to say is the best team won and the best team will win again next weekend.
Jeff
Guest
Hi Stu. would that goal kicker have been Clinton Schikovsi ?? (apologies for mis spelling). He was the one that annoyed me most (apart from Soward's routine)
Willy
Guest
Interesting that you call Robbie Farah's decision to take no further action on the racial slur "whinging". It seems to me the "whinging" defence is the first and last resort of anyone who lacks the intelligence to put together a coherant argument. Then again, seeing as you can't even put together a coherant sentence... well, it's hardly a surprise! Still - best of luck to the Dragons in the big one. I hope they go on and win it now.
Willy
Guest
Surely the big question is why NRL referees continue to fail to make the hard calls at the end of big games. How Jeremy Smith wasn't penalised for his visious knees in the back of Lote is a complete mystery - if not to the fans, then certainly to the judiciary, who have charged him with dangerous conduct. Add to this Darius Boyd's farcical failed attempt to play the ball close to his own line - a turnover in 80 minutes of every match of the rest of the season - and it's pretty clear the boys in pink took the gas and choked.