The All Blacks versus Springboks 100th Test match was an opportunity to celebrate one of the most esteemed rivalries in rugby.
Instead the Test, while being intense, has almost universally been panned as a dire reflection of the current state of the game. But perhaps the worst aspect of the game was the emergence of time-wasting at an unprecedented level.
There was lament that only one side tried to play entertaining rugby, and the team that did, did so poorly. It led to another iteration of the debate – should the laws be changed to remove the ability of teams to play like the Springboks did?
I don’t subscribe to that view. Even though the Springboks were playing some sort of Frankenstein’s mash-up of rugby union, rugby league, AFL and the NFL. Fifteen-man rugby has been shown, at least by the experience of the All Blacks, to be more effective at winning games (they just need to focus on peaking during World Cup years).
An argument could be made to put a finger on the scale, to a degree disincentivising up-and-under-based play. This has been done previously, as a result of the dire state of rugby in 2009 (coincidentally the main exponent of that style was South Africa), resulting in far more visually pleasing rugby in 2010.
Having multiple styles of rugby gives rugby an extra layer of richness. It leads to distinct national styles of playing (it’s great to see the French playing like the French again), which increases the tribalism of supporters. It also keeps things interesting. Rugby would lose something if the only difference between teams was their jerseys.
(Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
But there has been almost universal commendation of the time-wasting tactics employed by the Springboks. On more than one occasion the referee told the Springboks to proceed. But when he was ignored, it was about the only time he passed up an opportunity to blow the whistle.
I noticed, when I replayed the game, that I had to skip ahead multiple 15 second blocks to get back the ball being in play, even for lineouts. Normally lineouts are a no-nonsense, quick and effective restart. How many times did the South African props have to have a one-on-one meeting with the hooker?
On a tangent, has the South African teams leaving Super Rugby to play in Europe reduced their fitness even further, while reinforcing a more conservative game plan? Not that they only play ten-man rugby in the northern hemisphere, but the rugby in the northern hemisphere is still less expansive than Super Rugby.
The intent of this article is not to rehash that last weekend’s game was one for the purists. That has already been done. The purpose of this article is to discuss how the time-wasting aspect of the weekend’s game not only effects the spectacle, but also player safety.
One reaction when watching rugby is that ‘those guys look tired, let them have a rest’. But rest is the root of the problem. It allows the typically large, powerful modern rugby player to get back to full freshness. Many players in Europe and South Africa have optimised themselves to a stop-start way of playing rugby.
One of the main causes of negative player safety is that the size and power of modern players has created collisions with a lot more impact than they used to have. The head contact aspect of player safety is easy to identify and target, but the other aspect is the cumulative effect of thousands of impacts over a lifetime of play.
The ability to deliver those impacts is directly proportional to how fresh a player is, such as when they are more tired they don’t hit as hard. The issue is that players are wasting time to provide opportunities to get their breath back.
(Photo by Albert Perez/Getty Images)
There are a multitude of potential situations that can be gamed to provide players with a rest. Some are new and some have got worse over time.
An inexhaustible list: scrum resets, the time between the ball being in touch and the lineout, place kicks, time between a stop in play and a drop kick restart, constant questioning of the referee to stop play continuing, potentially fake injuries, the inability to tie shoelaces in a timely fashion, fake HIA checks, a team of water carriers and physios invading the field whenever possible and lingering for as long as they can, all the way to blatantly ignoring the referee’s direction to get on with the game.
There are some methods that can be used to reduce time wasting: a maximum time between the ball going into touch and the lineout, a maximum time between the stoppage and the drop kick restart, reducing the time for place kicks to 45 seconds, restarting play without a player who is unsure if they can continue, and not allowing water carriers on the field at all. A whole article could be spent expanding these ideas.
If deliberate and sustained time wasting continues it should be treated to a how a succession of penalties against one side is treated as a professional foul type infringement. The referee should be able to declare that they believe a team is deliberately wasting time.
After that warning (the warning should also result in a free kick) the sanction should be penalty and yellow card of the captain, or replacement captain if the time wasting persists.
Many of the more recent opportunities to waste time are the result of well-meaning initiatives to improve player safety. If those initiatives were used, in accordance with the spirit in which they were intended, there would be a bit more down time than there used to be. But not the extent that we saw last weekend. The extent we saw last weekend was shameful.
(Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
There will still be more stoppage time than there used to be, as things like HIAs, replays for tries, or replays for high tackles are not going away. But even if frequency of and time required for stoppages was reduced to the minimum and the clock was stopped during stoppages.
Players will still not get the cardio drain that they used to get. It is a paradox that one method to make rugby safer, such as replays for high tackles, makes rugby less safe in another way, allowing players to get their breath back.
If World Rugby wants players to get tired out, they should seriously consider extending the game to 45-minute halves. If a 15-man rugby team is difficult to contain between the 35- and 40-minute mark, imagine how difficult it will be to contain them between the 40- and 15-minute mark? That’s incentive enough alone to make teams revaluate their respective fitness/power balance.
World Rugby should also consider reducing the halftime break to five minutes. That will reduce the time for players to get their breath back. Losing the halftime show won’t be a big loss.
It’s generally forgettable and packed full of cliches, especially the interviews with the coaches. A few replays, some ads and getting back to the action five minutes earlier would be more desirable. I might not even change the channel.
Also there has been recent talk of reducing the number of tactical substitutions, while maintaining the bench at the same size. While this seems, on the face of it, to follow the idea of tiring players out, this would almost certainly have a counter intuitive effect.
In the 1990s there were either no tactical substitutions, or only a limited number of tactical substitutions. It did not stop players faking a pulled muscle or cramp to allow a replacement. But what you also got was a minute of time wasting as they player had to pretend that they were injured to justify the injury replacement.
While fake injuries are possible to combat somewhat, is World Rugby going to have an MRI on the sideline to verify that the muscle is pulled, or cramping?
A player could just say they took a head knock, get replaced, then pass the concussion test later as they were never concussed in the first place. We only need to look at last weekend’s game to see the shamelessness with which some are willing to game the system to extract an advantage.
People often look at the laws, the interpretation of the laws, or the referees as the problem. But part of the problem is the mindset of certain players, teams and coaches whenever there are new laws or interpretations designed to make the game freer flowing.
Some players, teams and coaches find ways of still playing negative, high frequency-high impact collision rugby and slowing the game down as much as possible. Not only is it harming the spectacle and the growth of rugby, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is also harming the players.
The style of play exemplified by the All Blacks and the Wallabies is better suited to both: growing the game via a more alluring spectacle for the elusive, yet vital, casual viewer, and at promoting a safer game with less repetitive heavy impacts. The interesting thing is that both goals are achieved via the same mechanism: moving the ball more and keeping the ball in play more often.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
Also having freak athletes is probably part of the reason why the Hansen era hand neatly a 90% win rate. About 80% long term. The big, strong, yet fit player of the type of player that New Zealand rugby looks for and tries to mould players into. Other countries, with different playing styles, optimise different body types. Anyway this article was about how time wasting isn’t good for the game. I don’t know why you are so determined to discuss a tangential point? Maybe write an article about who is the fittest team and the reasoning behind it?
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
The All Blacks had one game plan that didn’t work. The English game plan was spot on and well executed. That was the main difference. The psychological effect can be ignored. When things are going well a team will often ‘grow another leg’, adrenaline and belief kick in; the opposite when things go poorly. That’s what it looked like happened I’m the semi final. Like I’ve said it was one game which doesn’t make a trend.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
OK. So your point is that not only were the AB pack significantly heavier than England’s, but they had better cardio capability as well? It’s amazing England didn’t lose by 40 points against such supermen.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
That doesn’t mean they didn’t focus on cardio fitness. It just means that All Black team had some awesome athletes.
Peter
Roar Rookie
Well said Scrum. Couldn't agree more. Administrators are doing the game a great disservice in not addressing time wasting. Your point about lineouts is a good one but there are so many aspects of the game that could be addressed I hardly know where to begin my self. A fast game is a good game. I thought it was meant to be a game for all shapes and sizes. Yet clearly it has become dominated by power, too much power and not enough by skill, agility, speed and fitness. It is no good Rugby blaming every ground keeper in the country each time two forward packs of 800 kg lock horns. Of course they are going to rip up the turf. It's not the ground keepers fault. It's Rugby's fault for allowing the game to develop as it has. If you will excuse the pun Rugby needs to look not at the ground keeper's shed but in it's own backyard for resolution to it's own self inflicted problems. Professionalism has ripped up the old rule book as surely as those forward packs have ripped up the turf at your local Rugby ground and it's time that they were relaid.
Peter
Roar Rookie
Yesterdays news Deon. Like old newspaper's they just don't sell. Pay TV wants either todays or tomorrow's game and the more entertaining it is THE BETTER. I know it is tempting but It is no good blaming the players or a single professional outfit. They are generally speaking working in or at the very least around the parameters set by WORLD RUGBY. Ultimately the Buck stops with World Rugby. It is they who have allowed Elite Rugby to become stodgy, stop/start, boring, penalty ridden affairs that for referee's have become almost un-policeable. It is they who have sat on their hands and knees whilst professional teams like the Springboks develop winning tactics. (Why wouldn't they. That's the idea of the game isn't it. To win.) I'm not saying i'm a fan of the Springbok style of play. I am simply pointing out that Professional Rugby teams are outsmarting the Governing body. They are developing tactics faster than World Rugby can react to them but, that is hardly saying much. A Turtle reacts faster and is more pro-active than World Rugby. World Rugby are still taking credit for allowing the game to turn professional but it would do well to remember that when it did so, even then, it was only done with a gun to it's head. No wonder the game split in 1895. Run the way it is, it will split again if it continue's to vacillate. What Did World Rugby think was going to happen when the game turned professional ? That it wasn't going to change the way Rugby was played into the future ? It changed everything.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
The AB pack in the RWC semi-final was heavier than the English pack.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
These are just old cliches that have little relevance to modern international rugby at the top level. If you put the AB squad's 'cardio' stats up against England's they'd be virtually identical. They've all got top notch fitness and conditioning teams, and everything is monitored to a ridiculous degree of detail.
WEST
Roar Guru
Akira has a big game in him, he’s certainly strong and big enough to make an impact.. The ball is in his court, so to speak. It’s just up to him
kgbagent
Roar Rookie
I hope by "in play" you mean 'in motion'. They wasted time by having conferences and dawdling to set pieces, the prop slumbers over to tell the hooker what to do, slowing down the scrum sets - and on it goes. All rugby in this tournament is physical whoever the sides - I do not think last weekend's game was an exception in physicality. In the entire competition I haven't seen any other teams stopping play to tie their laces yet somehow the Bokke managed 3/4 wardrobe malfunctions. Many many other comments on the Roar lamented over the blatant stalling tactics by the Boks for, as Joe Moody commented, "time for them to have a smoko". I have no issue regarding water but 5 or 6 waterboys running on every time play stalls is a blight on the game. Some are still seen wandering off the field well after play restarts. Only the medic should be allowed to have comms - no other support staff. No "staff" barking defensive instructions against teams trying to score close to the line - especially when she is inside the field. HIA is something I agree with but cramp, fake vaseline, magic sprays and minor blood issues have to be taken to the sideline and play continues. I imagine these injuries will recover a lot quicker. Finally ... it is up to the ref to control this modern malaise and free kick or penalise this time wasting. Quick to penalise a player moving his feet in the scrum before the ball goes in, resetting scrums when the ball is available etc, but rarely enforce the "use it" or "hurry up".
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
A point of difference that rugby offers is that play can continue for minutes without a stoppage (if players want it to). American football is almost completely non existent outside of North America (sure there are some small leagues in Europe), the stops-start nature of the game has a lot to so with this. I would like the game to be 90 minutes; but with a total run time of 100 minutes. Making players get fitter will reduce injuries as, to get fitter, players will have to lose muscle and thus lose mass and power. So less powerful legs will move a smaller body slower. There will be less energy in the impacts. Less injuries. Not saying they have to play up tempo. Just saying they shouldn't be allowed to waste time to facilitate them either being unfit, or wanting to slow the game down. Agree play rugby however you like. But actually play the game. Wasting time is not playing the game. Ofa Tu'ungafasi: 129 kg, 1.95 m. He is big and he can keep up with the All Blacks. How big do you want players to get? As big as a NHF Offensive Tackle? Professional rugby is for athletes. Blatantly fat and unfit players belong in the 1990's. Passes should go back out of the hands at all times. If you like offside and lots of kicks you can watch AFL, or the Springboks. Yes there is a lot of tinkering in rugby. Probably too much. I would like to see less rules and the game flow. But rule changes are often caused by team exploiting the current rules, against the intention of the rules. Also the Springboks negative rugby is doing a lot of damage to the game. Rugby will not grow if it is a game only purists can appreciate.
J Jones
Roar Rookie
Exactly, there needs to be a variety of outcomes with an emphasis on providing transparent and fair competition in every facet - it's why most of us prefer union over league.
Peter
Roar Rookie
Yes, I do agree, Mr Jones. Changing the Value of Penalty Goals has long been mooted. Teams are playing for Penalty’s. It is an aberration. Again, it comes back to a lack of space on the field. The law book as it stands, does not encourage running Rugby. Teams, fearful of either giving away possession or worse, a penalty revert to kicking the ball away in the hope of picking up a cheap penalty themselves, within striking distance of the posts. Small, fleet of foot backs can no longer compete at the elite level. This is clearly to Rugby’s detriment. Players must run through or over their opponents these days, not around them as David Campese once did. He was loved for chancing his arm. People would go to the game just for the chance to see him do just that. Rugby can and must attract all shapes and sizes not just claim that it does. World Rugby talks the talk when it comes to player welfare. They over police some area’s of the game and yet seem blind to others. In not being pro-active they have failed to address or de-escalate the consequences of high impact collisions. An expansive game would not only be a more enjoyable and a safer game to play but a more spectacular game to watch. What are they waiting for, “a class action” to be filed against them before they react. ABSOLUTELY Mr Jones. Penalty goals should be de-valued, they should have been devalued years ago. Other than Morne Stein’s parents who else wants to watch the bloke potting penalty goals like candy all afternoon. Whether the value of a penalty goal is addressed by awarding more free kicks instead of penalty’s for less significant infringements or by devaluing the value of the goal itself is open to debate but it is worth noting that if by reducing a penalty goal to say 2 points was a bridge too far then perhaps devaluing the value of a penalty goal indirectly by proportionally increasing the value of a try might go someway to not only mitigating the number of penalty goal attempts but the sceptics as well. Either way, something must be done for I feel certain that most people do not want to spend their evenings looking at a penalty shoot out. They don’t in football and they don’t in Rugby either. If we are to be honest, audiences don’t even watch Rugby for the number of tries scored or Football for the number of goals conceded. They watch it in anticipation of the possibility of both. For the impartial viewer, that is where the entertainment exists. Not between penalty goals but between the lines. It’s about the build up, the drama, the skill, the athleticism, the tactics, the fitness not JUST the power.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
The Springbok players would be fitter (cardio fitness) if they played Super Rugby. I think that’s hard to dispute. I wasn’t saying northern hemisphere rugby is super slow; it is getting more like Super Rugby every year. I was just saying it’s slower than Super Rugby. Also there are different types of fitness. Cardio fitness, exemplified by Super Rugby; that’s how the All Blacks are renown for scoring in the 35-40 minute mark. Versus muscle fitness, exemplified by the Springboks or England. They can run one off all day; but run them side to side and back and forth gaps will open up. The key is for the All Blacks to maintain continuity e.g. 10-20 phases at pace. While the Springboks will win if they can disrupt the All Blacks from maintaining continuity e.g. 10-20 phases at pace. It will be another battle
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
It would've be good reward Blackadder got a start, even at blindside. Jordan is unlucky to be out of the 23. Good to see Weber start. Perenara's running might be more useful when the Springboks start to tire. This test could make or break Akira Ioane. If he has a big one that will silence those who think he is only good in open games against weaker teams. He has the potential to be a beast in tight and still exploit the running opptuinities when they arise. Let's hope he does the business this weekend.
J Jones
Roar Rookie
I agree with much if not all of what you say. Do you think changing the points structure might help? Penalties kicks at goal inside the 22m to remain as 3 points (red zone) but penalties side to be reduced to 2points. Refs have to enforce penalties for time wasting, it is a joke.
Peter
Roar Rookie
I agree. Time Wasting is ruining Rugby as a spectacle. As an impartial Rugby supporter for over 40 years I can see that the situation far from improving is getting worse. There were 36 attempts at goal in the Lions series. That's over an hour waisted in watching one man line up an attempt at goal which, as often as not was in front of the posts. Penalty's ran at 3 times the average penalty count than in a game of Rugby League. I am not a supporter of Rugby League, please don't shoot me down for pointing this out, Rugby League has it's own issue's, I am just stating a fact. Do the sums yourself if you don't believe me. Twenty Seven penalty's per test were handed out on average in the Lions series. Rugby Union is bogged down in too many ambiguous, antiquated laws that were more often than not set in place during the Victorian era when players were a fraction of the size they are today. If Rugby is, as it espouses a game for all people it needs to, short of expanding it's playing surface, reduce the size of elite players and the best way to do that is to make the game quicker. There are so many ways that this can be done but for financial reasons setting the clock back to 1970 and having a 5 minute half time break as everyone is handed a slice of orange is not one of the them, it simply will not happen. Broadcasters demand advertising space. Broadly speaking we need to get rid of as many scrum resets as possible. 5 Metre scrums are a blight on the game. Why not reset scrums at the 10 metre mark. Many if not most penalty's need to be reduced to free kicks only. Take the penalty for example for an illegal knock down. So much time is waisted, so much frustration is consumed in policing it, watching endless replay's so that the referee can be satisfied that the action was illegal that it is counter productive. It's not entertaining. Whilst all this goes on, almost everygame, everyone must sit around and chew their finger nails, not in anticipation but out of pure boredom. Oh, how sorry I feel for the poor sods that pay their hard earned to sit through it all. Rugby Administrators, always entitled seem to be having a laugh. Imagine paying $250 as some did in Perth this year to sit through that. Heavily policing of Trainers on the field would also be a good idea. If a 40 year veteran of the game gets bored with watching the Lions vs Boks series then how in hell does Rugby hope to expand it's supporter base. Just as infuriating as the games stop start nature is that Rugby supporters more than any other supporters it seems to me are set in their ways and so reticent to see change. Do they not understand that Professionalism has changed everything already. For the laws not to be calibrated in recognition of this seismic shift is doing everyone in and around the game an injustice and yet administrators continue to react at a glacial pace. Other sports would not stand for it.
NH Fan
Guest
Didn't see any SA player wasting time when the ball was in play. If NZ had not caused knock-ons or given away as many penalties because of the pressure they were under there would have been stoppages. It's easy to say people are faking it but in a very physical game there is going to be more injuries and more boots coming loose, more niggles. The less contact the less issues. It's easy to say no water etc but a physical game needs water, and niggles checked otherwise you are messing with people's health which is why HIAs etc were brought in because things weren't being checked properly.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
I never said ‘out of play more’. I said ‘able to put the ball out when they needed a rest’. England are always aggressive in defence. They’re always well conditioned. But differently from the All Blacks. The All Blacks are generally regarded as the most dangerous team just before the end of each half, because they have better cardio endurance, and it takes 30-35 minutes to tire a team like England out - on a good day. On a day when England are playing really well (and the All Blacks not so well) England won’t get pushed hard enough to be tired. Anyway one game doesn’t make a trend. Also cardio endurance comes from running. It is clear which competition runs more meters, does more quick throw ins, quick taps, not putting the ball out etc.
blerp
Roar Rookie
Don't worry. With the limit of 15 minutes of contact training in place, no player will ever suffer an injury again.