As a rusted-on football fan I have a strong preference for the game of rugby. It is not as one dimensional as the other codes and as a result it has a wider range of strategy options.
While this is its strength, it is also its weakness because uninitiated spectators find the complexity of the laws difficult to understand.
But for those of us willing to invest the time in unlocking the subtleties of this superficially simple, yet complex game, it is a game without peer.
While there are many aspects of the game that its supporters will defend vigorously in the face of ‘uninformed criticism’ there are aspects that even the most enthusiastic rugby watcher finds unsatisfactory because the laws of the game are not always in accord with the spirit of the contest.
One of the aspects of the laws that many supporters find to be an annoyance is time management. Despite the game having a nominal duration of 80 minutes, the time when there is a contest is significantly less than that period.
Rugby is a vigorous game and its physical demands are substantial so it is essential that that there be breaks in the play when players can recuperate from prior exertions. Whether all stoppages should be part of the game time is a matter of debate.
It is an issue important enough to attract the attention of the game’s governing body – the International Rugby Board. In their report of the 2011 Rugby World Cup the IRB expressed satisfaction that the average time the ball was in play for the 2011 competition was 35 minutes 25 seconds (45%). Is this a satisfactory result? A time analysis of the 2012 Super Rugby competition that I conducted showed the ball was in play for 35 minutes 31 seconds.
At this stage of the 2014 Super Rugby competition the average time in play is 31 minutes 42 seconds (38.9%). This significant reduction in playing time is a worrying signal.
In an excellent article in the Sunday Mail on 15 June Andrew Slack was critical of the downtime – even in rugby games that are enjoyable to watch. He questioned the necessity of the time clock continuing to run when “the ball being fetched from over the sideline, scrums being repacked, and the referee having deep and meaningful conversations with players” or when “the kicker is lining up his conversion”.
Subsequent to his comments I conducted a time analysis of the recent Test matches played under the auspices of the IRB. The average time in play was 33 minutes 33 seconds. This is 40.8% of the average game time of 82 minutes 18 seconds.
So what activities accounted for the rest of the time? The ball is out of play in the following circumstances.
(i) Scrum: – from the time the referee calls a scrum until the ball leaves the hands of the half back feeding the scrum;
(ii) Lineout: – from the time the assistant referee signals that the ball is out until the ball leaves the thrower’s hands to restart the game with a lineout;
(iii) Penalty: – from the time the referee awards the penalty until a player takes an action to restart the game;
(iv) Free kick: – from the time the referee awards the free kick until a player takes an action to restart the game;
(v) Penalty attempt: – from the time the penalty is awarded until the player taking the attempt begins his approach to the ball;
(vi) Conversion attempt: – from the time the penalty is awarded until the player taking the attempt begins his approach to the ball;
(vii) Restart: – from the time the referee signals that the ball is ‘dead’ until the player re-stating the game makes contact with the ball;
The average time per game for each of these categories in the recent tests is shown below in minutes.
In play Scrum Lineout Penalty Free Kick Penalty goal attempt Conversion attempt Re-start
33.55 14.49 11.67 5.14 0.26 6.75 5.82 4.58
40.8% 17.6% 14.2% 6.2% 0.3% 8.2% 7.1% 5.6%
Is it really necessary for the time clock to continue running through all of these downtime aspects of the game?
Surely there is a sensible compromise that will allow us to enjoy more of the meaningful activities that the game has to offer! As Andrew concludes, “The more rugby that can be played and in the allotted 80 minutes the better…” and to achieve this “the clock also must be given a rest.”
Daz
Guest
I agree bb simplify the rules and take away the ambiguity. But speed the game up and both of us might finally compete with the ABs. They run over the top of most teams in the last ten or fifteen. Responsibility for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the refs. Good refs make for good games.
Skip
Guest
Owen, watch a game tonight when there is an injury. Watch how many people come onto the field and how many players get treated. Then watch how long it takes to clear the field and restart play.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Going down for injuries used to be the classic way to run down the clock. They still take a knee in American Football! I have not seen it obviously used in recent times, but I can remember well the fake injuries players used before the new substitution rules came in. I even did it once myself when I was 12 on orders of my coach that I swap off for another player. Back to the topic, I think set pieces get delayed 15seconds sometimes for injured players. I don't have a problem with that. Excluding the player will change the game.
Skip
Guest
The biggest blight on the game is when there is an injury. 57 trainers, strappers and a troop of cabaret dancers jump on to the field. every player, ref lines person and camera mans assistants gets attended to. 47 hours later play resumes!! Play should not stop for an injured player. Trained medical staff can attend to a player, let them do their job, what assistance can the ref add unless they are a trained a paramedic? The only time play should stop for an injury is, A. If the injured player is endanger of being run over or fallen on. B. A prop is injured and cannot pack a scrum. C. The medical cart is needed. Even if a hooker is injured and can not throw to a line out....find some one else and play on. As for stopping for contact lenses ......bugger me!
Sheikh
Guest
Like the idea of penalising a team who makes the other wait for more than 15 seconds. As to the video - the requirement to hold and touch was due to an increasing number of neck and shoulder injuries to front rowers wasn't it? The 'obvious' solution to scrums of going back to an informal 1970s pack and straight in wouldn't work with today's professional behemoths in the front row; you'd risk more injuries. With the modern concentration on the impact as what wins the contest, injuries will come if the pack aren't properly set. Therefore, the impact has to be reduced/removed, and the current scrum guidelines only remove it by prolonging the scrum. Maybe, and heretical as this may sound, you build the scrum with the front rows already bound (which sounds a lot like league!) Did enjoy the (I think) 1995 scrum where they had minor handbags and still reset the scrum within 15 seconds, though!
Dasher
Roar Guru
Brilliant video. You can almost feel the continuity of play shudder to a halt around 2007. There is no doubt that the current scrum rules are slowing play down with many resets. My question: are the new scrum rules to protect/control the players who are now much larger and stronger, or are the scrum rules causing the modern player to evolve into less aerobic behemoths? Either way, the time taken for scrums these days is bloody ridiculous and seems to be getting longer each passing year. While sitting in the Brisbane crowd at the Australia v France game I felt there was a lot of time wasted waiting for the TMO to make a ruling on tries. The clock was stopped, but the crowd was growing more disinterested, because after waiting for the decision, they then had to wait for the kick. I propose the kicker takes the conversion while the TMO is making his decision, with the conversion counting if the try is awarded of course.
RobC
Roar Guru
Dont stop the clock. It encourages stoppages. Lets see what NRC produces. My thoguhts is to reward quick play of setpiece, which is pack fitness, confidence, skill. eg for both lineout/scrum if one side is set to engage, and waits for more than 15 seconds, then they win a free kick and/or five metres. fyi: how scrums used to work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOg7aR5sHts
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Yes I agree with PeterK that stopping time does not address the actual issue which is physical stops in play. Small tweaks are able to deal with those like limiting time for penalty kicks and being more stringent on time wasting and getting better at managing scrums.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
Maroon1959. You did a time analysis of Super Rugby and the IRB test series? I dips me lid to your absolute dedication to the sport. Great stuff!
AdamS
Roar Guru
How much fitter would the players have to be? Can they be any fitter than they are? The props would be worn out wrecks. You would need bigger benches and fluid interchanges.
liam
Guest
How about referees manage the way some teams amble up to the line out after they had a huddle, England did it nearly every lineout against the all blacks. This should be penalized as timewasting.
Hoqni
Guest
I say, (1) monitor the existing time limits. (2) at 70 minute mark, clock stops for all ball not in play - up to scrum feed, kicking, lineout until thrown etc.
maroon 59
Guest
Thanks for your observations Matt. The second half of the AB/England was engaging. I would have no concerns if all games were played with the intent, determination and skill shown. For the record this has been the only half of football in 110 games analysed that the time in play exceeded 20 minutes (20.88 m. - 49%)out of a half of 42.92 minutes )Sadly it can not be used as an examplar because it is so far from the norm. I do not agree with you that ALL of the time taken for kicks at goal should be on the clock. There are games where a kick consumes two and a half minutes. With respect to Rugby League I can tell you that it is not much better- with about 45% time in play. I have done no work on Sevens. I am not satisfied with the current time in play but would agree that there are some games where any extra would be a punishment for the spectators. I am only interested in solutions to the time problem that do not change the general shape of the game. Rugby is great - but it could be better! The are innovative solutions - but I would like others to think seriously about the issue and identify them. I don't want to teach rugby players to suck eggs.
MikeN
Roar Pro
I agree with kicks, but would only stop the clock for scrums in the last 10 minutes of the game. Keep using the penalty for taking too long with the lineouts. The big problem is front rowers going down for a rest and delaying a scrum.
PeterK
Guest
disagree. With the clock being stopped there is no advantage to waste time / run the clock down when leading. Your premise is that if a team is tired they can have a rest, the clock is stopped so there is no pressure on the ref to get them going. So big powerful players can go for short spurts and then force a rest. The ref can still get them moving and if they delay give a short arm to the other team, or make it a penalty. So players actually have to play for longer which will require more fitness.
Magic Sponge
Guest
Good points raised but I believe we should stop the clock straight away for penalty goals, after a try is scored and all scrums. We must lose about 15 minutes a game due to this. Please can we have less talk between players and refs as this is chewing another 5 minutes.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
I do however completely agree with the sentiment of the article. I would hope that the time-in-play is being closely monitored by the IRB and SANZAR and that things such as the new TMO guidelines and stricter refereeing and harsher penalties for players who 'waste time' by slowing down taking scrums, kicks to touch and lineouts can be solved. New rules can be brought in for example, it is hard for a referee to monitor every little thing, so a touch judge could monitor a new limit of 15 seconds to take a lineout, pack a scrum or kick a ball to touch. He could alert the referee with an alarm to tell him to blow it up for time wasting. I believe out touch judges are our most under-utilized resource. They are highly qualified referees and we could give them more powers within the game and allow the referee to focus on the breakdowns and tackle ball. I never want to see rugby played like American Football with different teams for offense and defense and 60 reserves on the sidelines. Rugby should remain a battle of strength AND endurance where the game can be won multiple ways in multiple phases by multiple types of players. And may that always continue.
Chan Wee
Guest
@ biltongbek : I"M sure a game of rugger is less than 100 minutes with all the anthems and dancing included. so there is at least 20 minutes or even 15 that can be used up. maybe rugger shud look at the use of timekeeper in basket ball and experiment. in this day with the big screens and all a clock can be shown on the scoreboard or a screen for all to see. but a few basic starting rules need to be agreed upon - for example the clock will stop once a scrum colapses first time. then for every reset it will be stopped. also one could stop the clock for conversions. in basket ball the free throws are taken whith the clock stopped. the "ball in play" time is the most important stat. when the ball is kicked out a lot or dropped a lot the ball in play time is reduced becoz of the time taken for set plays.
Chan Wee
Guest
@ Shop : the kick time limit is enforced . shot count starts when the ref points the touchies to the posts. if my understanding is correct , there is no allowance for the ball falling off the tee. maybe someone who knows the Laws inside out can clarify. what happens beforehand maybe the time people are concerned with - that is the time in between when the penalty is awarded and the time team decides what to do , like shot , kick out , take a tap or an up & under. as Biltongbek it is one of the beauties of the game. for example the only try in the NZ ENG test was scored becoz Eng assumed a shot and NZ ran the ball catching the defence napping.
Sheikh
Guest
I'd agree with stopping the clock on scrum re-sets, but only on re-sets (ie, not the original scrum setting). That'd stop a side continually lining up and then standing up at the last minute because "Sorry Sir - I wasn't stable." Also, I'd probably change penalty kicks and conversions to 30 seconds and enforce the time rather than stop the clock. If they can't get the tee out and line up the kick in 30 seconds, the ref blows for timed-out and either re-start or scrum. It seems most tries get referred to the TMO anyway, so use that time for preparing for the kick. Don't see the point of stopping the clock for line-outs, free-kicks or re-starts, though; ther ref has enough to worry about without stopping and starting the clock constantly. (And yes, I know they don't do this themselves at Super Rugby or International level, but the laws have to be consistent from club rugby up.)