In very much a Back to the Future type scenario, in Bledisloe 2 we saw a similar score to the Sydney Test.
We saw a similar try-scoring result (six to two as opposed to six to one), a similar storyline (close up until just prior to half-time), and a similar pre and post-halftime strike from the All Blacks who ran out comfortable winners.
Michael Cheika’s televised reactions to most decisions were also eerily familiar.
Strikingly different were the venue (obviously), the referee, the Australian lineout efficacy, the Australian scrummaging, and of course the TMO interventions (or going “back in time” as Huey Lewis might say) as well as the hotly discussed TMO omissions.
As a follow-up to my earlier Bledisloe 1 experiment, and emboldened by the huge amount of feedback it almost provided, I thought it only fair to offer my observations from a very similar, yet also very different Bledisloe 2 at Eden Park in Auckland.
The test match itself was another game of two halves (cliche intended) with again each set for 40 minutes duration.
My observations were again based on the Fox Sports coverage, the match clock, and the same criteria for scrums and lineouts. Stoppages were this time classified as all tries with conversion time and returning to halfway until kick-off included in a single measure.
Interestingly, unlike most Test matches there were no penalty goal attempts to worry about – something I cannot recall happening very often in the past. This was how it unfolded.
The match lasted 4926 seconds, compared to 4812 seconds in Bledisloe 1, with a 41:17 first half and an 80:49 minute full time.
The table below shows a breakdown of ‘lost time’ in the second match by event, with first match comparisons in brackets.
| Event | Scrums | Lineouts | Penalties | Stoppages |
| Number of events | 14 (15) | 26 (24) | 19 (15) | 8* (16)^ |
| Total time (seconds) | 1014 (909) | 439 (401) | 470 (478) | 800 (601) |
| Average seconds per event | 72 (61) | 17 (17) | 25 (32) | 100 (38) |
| First half average | 65 (65) | 20 (17) | 23 (33) | 103 (26) |
| Second half average | 80 (56) | 14 (17) | 29 (30) | 98 (42) |
| Longest event | 192 (103) | 32 (28) | 46 (98) | 115 (80) |
| Shortest event | 33 (30) | 1 (7) | 4 (18) | 84 (17) |
* – all tries in Bledisloe 2
^ – more events as tries were separated from conversions and restarts and penalty shots in Bledisloe 1
In summary, I observed 2723 seconds (compared to 2389) of downtime or roughly 55 per cent (compared to 50 per cent) of the total game time.
| Event | Downtime in Game 2 | Downtime in Game 1 |
| Scrums | 20.6% | 18.9% |
| Stoppages | 16.2% | 12.5% |
| Penalties | 9.5% | 9.9% |
| Lineouts | 8.9% | 8.3% |
| Total | 55.3% | 49.6% |
Breaking down the lost time, the majority for a single event is again clearly from scrums. Unlike Sydney, we did have a few resets in Auckland and the Wallabies elected to take a series of scrums prior to Will Genia’s try.
The argument for time off at the whistle for stoppage and back on at the feed would again seem an easy time saving option with a league style wave from the referee signalling time back on.
Stoppage time from tries was greater in game two and, with an extra Wallabies try and no penalty shots at goal, the average time lost increased dramatically from the first game. Bear in mind I combined the times for try-conversion-return to halfway in the more recent numbers – more for my own sanity!.
Lineouts were again the ‘fastest’ stoppage.
Outlier events in this Test were one free kick that was tapped and run quickly by the Wallabies and two quick lineout throws – one to each team – neither of which affected the overall averages greatly.
“He’s waiting in the wings. He speaks of senseless things”, David Bowie
The elephant in the stadium for the second Test was the correctly ‘recalled’ Barrett try that still managed to waste well over three minutes of game time.
Without this single event, the average scrum time drops from 72 seconds to 63, and total time lost by scrums drops back to 18% – and similar to Bledisloe 1 – but still way too much.
In conclusion, another test, another 50 per cent-plus loss of legitimate game time to stoppages.
The questions, like the outcome is the same.
Do we want more actual rugby in our game or not? Are any official stats kept on this time aspect of our game?
How would our game change if we played a full 80 minutes of actual rugby?
All opinions welcome!
Kane
Roar Guru
Issue here would be in general play the opposition gets the ball, even if you gave the option to the team under advantage to take the kick, they were likely kicking under pressure and would prefer another crack
JohnnyOnTheSpot
Roar Rookie
Sensing that the "by the clock" had run its course, I was hesitant about going there again with the Mandela test. Luckily for all involved (or unluckily as the case may be) the game itself made the decision for me. It was a SHOCKER !!!!!! No way was I going to watch that tortuous test again. Let's just say that the end couldn't come quick enough - have to feel for all the Bok supporters.... One of the most inept performances in years... Poor Harry must be in therapy.... As for the wallabies .... a win is a win. Enough said. Thought the ref was poor - but his job was not made easy by the skills on display. So no "by the clock" this week. Is anyone even interested?
KF
Guest
Hi I read somewhere (unreliable source) that ball is in play 80% of the time, but I am not sure what that percentage exactly includes - i.e. how is the tackle time being factored in. I definitely agree that we would need some time limits - i.e. in France there is 1 minute timeout between try and conversion or for penalty execution (and timer is displayed on the screen). I would not mind a timeout in scrum between "set" and feeding the ball or in the lineout, and put the stop or time limit on medical stuff helping struggling forward (usually frontrower since set pieces can't start without them) buying some breathing time for the team just before scrum or lineout. BTW, yes, I was a member of Front Row Union (in good old lineout blocking and rucking times). Bets regards KF
P2R2
Roar Rookie
IF Teams played 80 actual minutes, the only Team left standing would be the ABs...but I like your perspective that alot of time is wasted with this, that and may other things and playing time is quickly vaporated...
moaman
Roar Guru
One of my pet 'beefs' is a situation where someone in a team playing under advantage kicks the ball out....the ref brings them back for the penalty and they kick the ball out again! (Often in the same place). A simple time-saver would be to offer the team the mark where the original kick went out, surely?
Rickster
Roar Rookie
Hi All.... I do think the game is understood in this article. I think the main issue raised is rather the growing amount of time nothing happens (players waiting around before packing scrum, long lineout chats in a huddle, etc). Although it would be good to verify this by also comparing any trends further back over time (go for it Johnny on the Spot!) To me its therefore not so much about the time the ball is in play, defined as either structured (scrums, lineouts etc engaged) or unstructured (open play). Although what a healthy "balance" between structured and unstructured play could be is another debate/article! The Front Rowers Union would certainly argue for more scrum time (you're not a member of FRU are you KF? Lol). As always a healthy balance is required to keep our game and satisfy wellfare of players, spectators, and $s coming through the door for the game's commercial survival and successful competition against its rivals (a reality if want to be able to keep/attract players, etc). Certainly the current growing downtime is turning away paying supporters the game relies upon. I know many rugby fanatics, players, etc, who are getting so bored and would like throw things at tv!) So, how to achieve win-win and maintain the essence of the game we love? I don't think we necessarily need 90% of the 80 mins being ball in play as defined above. But we could improve and reduce the amount of time nothing happens. As mentioned in another reply, this could simply be improved by limiting the time teams take to set scrum (free kick to other team and play on as per ARL) or allow quicker lineout throws (many these as per bygone years and being once again experimented with by Twiggy and co ... for the good of the game... lets hope IRU etc also embrace any good outcomes and dont ignore proven enhancements out of spite... although I fear they might!) The longer complete stoppages are (unfortunately!) is no doubt a function of the harder and faster game these days (a good thing thing of course!). Players welfare certainly needs consideration though. I am concerned across a number of sports for the players... commercial side don't care if players end up on wrecked pile, careers are shorter, long-term health permanently affected, etc. But... it is a physical game and what they mostly get paid big $s for. So, I think win-win may be reduce downtines as mentioned above. Allow players chance to recover through rotational subs as per other sports (hey... may justify having likes of both Hooper and Pocock playing, not just same time? There's another discussion/article!). Keep the game moving! I would caution against having more time offs. Just draws game out more. Soccer seems just add 3-5 mins per half, relative to amount stoppages. AFL actually also use timeouts after goals scored for tv adds (I understand umpires wait to hear adds over before restarting play?). Don't want that... starts becoming like NFL... designed around adverts! Anyway, there's some more food for thought, chewing, and possibly spitting out!
JohnnyOnTheSpot
Roar Rookie
Cheers KF, I agree completely with your comments regarding the contest in rugby and the fundmental structured/unstructured components of the game. My contention is the perception of poor time management of game time that impacts on the amount of rugby we get to see (and too much is never enough) and the impact this has on non-purists of the game - i.e. those no longer attending matches or watching televised games. Maybe you are right, and I no longer understand the game I watch, but in 20 years of playing in Canterbury and the Manawatu, and 5 years of coaching, my recollection is of a game where rucking kept infringements in check (good enough if fast enough was the unwritten law), line outs had no lifting and were fed by wingers mostly, and yellow cards were things used by junior players to get free admission to senior and representative fixtures - and didn't we attend in droves!). So yes I'm old but the game seemed a lot simpler back then. I too would be interested in the NRL stats for ball in play if anyone has access to them. Thanks for reading and the comments. JOTS
JohnnyOnTheSpot
Roar Rookie
I think the format corrects itself after the edit time expires- your post looked fine????
JohnnyOnTheSpot
Roar Rookie
Cheers Riccardo, The gist of my time on/off argument would not change the "breathers" that punctuate the game now - they are necessary and part of the rugby experience - by calling time of DURING these "breathers" we would see more actual rugby as well. The same applies to defending teams breathers. Essentially the flow of the game would not change but the time in play would increase as well as the time off that comes with it. JOTS
Ralph
Roar Guru
I wonder who the judge would be of what is 'cynicism' and what is not.
JohnnyOnTheSpot
Roar Rookie
James - that is my "beef" I guess - when Barnes blew the whistle for BB's "try" - play restarted with a scrum feed 192 seconds later on the game clock - over 3 minutes lost for no good reason. Time off would not have been difficult.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Don't they stop the clock for a TMO review?
KF
Guest
Not sure why all carriage returns were removed from the article. Sorry about that.
KF
Guest
Hi Reading this kind of articles makes me wonder if the author really understands the game of rugby. For me it provides a great balance of unstructured play (when ball is in play) and structured play (scrums and lineouts). One of the core concepts in rugby is almost continuous contest for the ball and scrums. lineouts and rucks provide great platforms. BTW here are stats for EPL - football (soccer) teams: https://talksport.com/football/315919/average-ball-play-time-each-premier-league-side-201718-season-171127263506/ Turns out that out of 90 (or more) minutes of the game ball is in play between 53 minutes and 34 seconds (min) and 58 minutes 31 seconds (max) on average. Given that football is highly unstructured game these stats make rugby look reasonably good. It would be interesting to see the stats for NRL and AFL. For AFL Wikipedia sates that "A typical AFL quarter might run from 27 to 33 minutes" - for 20 minutes quarter. That is interesting considering that AFL is highly unstructured game. Best regards KF
Riccardo
Roar Rookie
I agree with Harry. Especially when you consider how much faster the game has gotten since even the mid to late 2000's. The forwards, in particular, need a breather, but the same can be said of the defending side. Interesting perspective though mate...
Riccardo
Roar Rookie
Potential for injury for starters, not that I disagree with your central ethos. Perhaps cards need to be looked at if advantage is negated by the whistle, especially for cynical infringements like boring in. Advantage does seem to be applied differently by different refs. BUT, as long as they are consistent within the 80 minute window, that's okay by me.
JohnnyOnTheSpot
Roar Rookie
Agree Rickster - nothing more frustrating than watching the clock tick by while people stand around doing nothing - especially when your team is behind or the opposition has someone in the bin. The number of non-believers who comment that rugby is "boring" are increasing as quickly as the game seems to be waning in Australia.
JohnnyOnTheSpot
Roar Rookie
Cheers Harry, My feeling is that having an 80 minute match only actually provide 35-40 minutes of play seems strange - especially when so much of the lost time is totally unnecessary. Stopping the clock would not stop the players from having the down time during the game - effectively they would get just as much "recovery" time over the course of a match - but the in play time would be extended and a true 80 minute contest would ensue. I agree that it would be difficult to get more rugby into the current 80 minute timeframe but see no reason to run the clock for 3 minutes while the TMO reviews a try/no try decision and then play returns to the other side of the field for a scrum as happened with BB's disallowed try. Increasing game time would in my opinion improve the spectacle, make for more absorbing contests, allow greater scoring potential as fatigue/fitness factors kick in, place less emphasis on size vs fitness. And let's face it more rugby can NEVER be a bad thing. JOTS
Rickster
Roar Rookie
Also to speed things up... why not play advantage when teams destroy opposition scrum, marching them backwards and win the ball? Why blow penalty straight away? Inconsistent application of advantage rule across the game.
Rickster
Roar Rookie
Interesting stats indeed and echo/explain how and why we feel watching the game these days. Very frustrating also when you see the teams that need to score quickly slowing down play... last to set scrums, slow to lineouts.. just dumb rugby really! Would be good to go back to some of the old ways (some have even been trialled but not implemented... WSR however seem more proactive?). Things like set time to pack scrum or else free kick to other side and play on, throw into lineout whenever ready, etc. Sure it might wear out players more quickly, but why not simply have rotating subs... like some fast action other sports have. Forget war of attrition and make more interesting to watch.