Game time. 60 minutes minimum.

I'm not a statto, but I'm prepared to bet that spectators are treated to less than an hour's game time per match.

For the purposes of clarity, I define 'game time' as that the ball is actually in play. 'Match time' would be the time elapsed since the start of the game half.

So what I propose is to stop the game time clock at each and every breakdown of play (i.e. when the ref blows to stop the game) and only restarted when the ball is back in play. So (for example) if a scrum continually goes down and has to be re-set, then the re-set time is down to the players as it is in their match time.

Essentially what I'm saying is that the game continues in each half for thirty minutes game time and at least forty minutes match time whichever is the longer.

Ideally I'd additionally recommend that refs are instructed to sharpen up on their tolerance of delaying tactics as winning teams wind down the clock - (e.g. where the SH delays the release from the breakdown for an eternity). This 'sharpening up' to be applied for the last 15 minutes of game time.

An added advantage is that kicks for goal are discounted from the supporters' game time and added to the players' match time.

Essentially what I'm saying is that the game continues in each half for thirty minutes game time and at least forty minutes match time whichever is the longer.

Needlessly comlicated Portnoy.

The game will only be allocated a certain amount of time in television slots.

Also there is no obligation for a scrumhalf to release the ball at the breakdown - he can keep it there forever if he wants. In theory there could be a penalty in the first minute and the team could have a 39 minute ruck until half time (hmm must advise Munster about this)

How is it complicated Staggy?

The clock stops when the ref blows. And restarts when play restarts.

The current game time already over-rides match time whatever the TV companies' schedules.

red_stag wrote:

Essentially what I'm saying is that the game continues in each half for thirty minutes game time and at least forty minutes match time whichever is the longer.

Also there is no obligation for a scrumhalf to release the ball at the breakdown - he can keep it there forever if he wants. In theory there could be a penalty in the first minute and the team could have a 39 minute ruck until half time (hmm must advise Munster about this)

Oh. So my hearing the ref shouting 'release' or 'play it' or whatever are delusional voices in my own head?

They are not voices in your head you'll be glad to hear. Refs shout release but it is not aimed at the scrumhalf to get the ball out. It is shouted at players who look to be handling the ball. "Use it" is only for mauls and scrums - rucks have no time limit. I wouldn't be opposed to rucks having a limit.

The clock stopping and starting is fine. This idea of having either at least 30 minutes of play time or else maybe 40 minutes of actual time depending which is longer etc. Thats the complicated bit.

Why not just take efforts to make the game speed up. For example be more lenient on the use of quick throws, encourage referees to call advantage over sooner, impose a rule saying you can't kick from a tee only drop goal (like 7s) etc.

red_stag wrote:They are not voices in your head you'll be glad to hear. Refs shout release but it is not aimed at the scrumhalf to get the ball out. It is shouted at players who look to be handling the ball. "Use it" is only for mauls and scrums - rucks have no time limit. I wouldn't be opposed to rucks having a limit.

The clock stopping and starting is fine. This idea of having either at least 30 minutes of play time or else maybe 40 minutes of actual time depending which is longer etc. Thats the complicated bit.

Why not just take efforts to make the game speed up. For example be more lenient on the use of quick throws, encourage referees to call advantage over sooner, impose a rule saying you can't kick from a tee only drop goal (like 7s) etc.

No it's not. The clock already stops and starts.

Of course in TVed games the fourth official could always prompt the ref with a red/amber/green advice as to the game/match time progress.

And american football is a short game of about 3 hours. How long is it guaranteed that the ball is in play there? Wouldn't like to see this in rugby.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:And american football is a short game of about 3 hours. How long is it guaranteed that the ball is in play there? Wouldn't like to see this in rugby.

AF football game time is 1hr.

The rest is plastic packaging and rah rah and commercials.

I'm going nowhere near that model.

I remember reading somewhere about Neil Back turning up for a training session that had been cancelled and doing 37 minutes of shuttle work by himself as that was the average time the ball was in play during a game...

Portnoy wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:And american football is a short game of about 3 hours. How long is it guaranteed that the ball is in play there? Wouldn't like to see this in rugby.

AF football game time is 1hr.

The rest is plastic packaging and rah rah and commercials.

I'm going nowhere near that model.

But you are very close to that model in your suggestion. The team that is behind in a game will always put the pace into the game to keep things going quickly to use all the time they have to try and get back into a game. If the clock stops anyway, then not only does the team in front want to take slow down a game (as is the case at the minute) but the team trying to get back into that game will also use the gaps in play to try and line up the next attack in a more structured and organised way knowing they aren't running out of time while they do it.
Once that happens, the gaps between plays extend. This extends the length of time a game is broadcast, commentators don't have anything more to talk about, the tv station will start to put in a quick 20-30 second advert once they figure out what kind of breaks in play (lineouts for example) can take a commercial. Vendors at the grounds will realise also that people sitting around for 20-30 minutes longer in real time(minimum) will take the extra snack or drink and hey presto we might as well be watching nfl or mlb. Not baseball though, that game is crazy long altogether.

As if the refs didn´t have enough to worry about! I think this article is causing sudden chest pain for Stag.

One way of stopping an eternity at a ruck is to counter-ruck. Looks great like a human lawnmower cutting a fresh path. If you want the ball bad enough you can get it.

Nah Kia, I agree with Portnoys sentiments. I just thing he is going about it the wrong way.

I gave several examples of ways that the game could be sped up.

I really like the idea of drop goals only - no kicking tees - like 7s.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:And american football is a short game of about 3 hours. How long is it guaranteed that the ball is in play there? Wouldn't like to see this in rugby.

AF football game time is 1hr.

The rest is plastic packaging and rah rah and commercials.

I'm going nowhere near that model.

But you are very close to that model in your suggestion. The team that is behind in a game will always put the pace into the game to keep things going quickly to use all the time they have to try and get back into a game. If the clock stops anyway, then not only does the team in front want to take slow down a game (as is the case at the minute) but the team trying to get back into that game will also use the gaps in play to try and line up the next attack in a more structured and organised way knowing they aren't running out of time while they do it.
Once that happens, the gaps between plays extend. This extends the length of time a game is broadcast, commentators don't have anything more to talk about, the tv station will start to put in a quick 20-30 second advert once they figure out what kind of breaks in play (lineouts for example) can take a commercial. Vendors at the grounds will realise also that people sitting around for 20-30 minutes longer in real time(minimum) will take the extra snack or drink and hey presto we might as well be watching nfl or mlb. Not baseball though, that game is crazy sidesong altogether.

If you think that Pro sides, their owners, sponsors, refs let alone the broadcasters would allow such shenanigans to continue, then you are deluded.

As I said in my op:

I'm not a statto, but I'm prepared to bet that spectators are treated to less than an hour's game time per match.

What sort of game time would be reasonable to be expected from spectators (both armchair and 'live')?

Don´t think the purists will like that idea Stag. You´re going down the path of doubling points for drop goals if you do it on one leg. I´ve got no problem with the ref putting time on again only when the players get the ball in play but once it´s in play, then the clock should be running.

I fail to see how the SH monopolise the tactic of delaying the release from a breakdown. By all means if you´re ahead, why shouldn´t you run down the clock? But generally quick ball is what´s prized to break the defensive line. Doesn´t matter what team you represent.

I think other areas need to be addressed rather than this. For example, the breakdown in general. Even though rucking is technically still legal, I think so long as it´s not intentional stomping on a player´s head or extremities, a player should be able to tapdance on a player lying over the ball if they´re on the wrong side like it used to be. Now if you raise your foot in aggression it seems the cards come out. We have to find a way to make it easy to recycle ball if you have momentum but at the same time making it a contest at the breakdown and more players or better technique can see the ball come back to the aggressor so it doesn´t turn into an endless procession of rucks.

In saying that, that was a lovely sequence of plays with Munster against Northhampton in the dying minutes! Bet you loved those two narrow wins Stag recently.

Kia, I truly hope Munster win every match in the Heineken Cup that way. You experience the full blend of emotions - from thinking you can do it, to giving up hope, sheer relief, fear, joy, anxiety - all in one match.

Mate I know how you feel. I went through the emotional blender in the final this year. Not sure I´d want to repeat it on a regular basis. You´re sick!

I wonder how many games are denied a spectacular final turnaround because of negative winding down the clock tactics?

Ans speaking as a Tigers' fan, I know more than a bit about those.

Portnoy, what you are basically asking is how many games are denied a spectacular final turnaround by pragmatic play. A team has to earn the right to come back late in a game and that's what makes it so special, especially against a good team like Northampton. If every game was a lottery going into the last 5 minutes, it wouldn't be nearly as good a feeling as when it happened.

I think after the first scrum collapse (in possibly an endless sequence) the referee should blow the whistle, get both packs up, have a little word and call for another engage. He doesn't turn the clock back on until the ball comes clear from the scrum, or a free-kick/penalty/penalty try is awarded. That way, 1 scrum takes the length of time 1 scrum should take (5-10 seconds maximum), but if both teams are scrummaging fairly and keeping it up then there is no need to keep stopping and starting the clock, just let the game go on.

Robbo, Going along (for a moment) with Stag's take on this article, I'd be interested to see an end to the c-t-p-e farce, I'd like to see the scrum form as separate packs, then ref calls 'engage' (not hit!), 'settle', 'play' commands. And the push comes on when the ball is fed. i.e. Just like the old days.

I thought about your proposal under my concept, but decided against it as immediately introduces the concept of anomalies - game time is when the ball is in play - and that's from the moment the SH feeds the ball into the scrum.

[ed] p.s. I have no problem with pragmatic pay so long as the game is moving. I'm against the tactic of cynically winding down the clock whilst the game is static and the clock is wound down whilst the side in possession attempts to put the shutters up.

"If you think that Pro sides, their owners, sponsors, refs let alone the broadcasters would allow such shenanigans to continue, then you are deluded."

Portnoy,

Of course I'm deluded;
- I'm deluded to think pro sides might try and stretch the boundaries of rules for their advantage
- I'm deluded that owners might see that having 5-10-20+ thousand people at their ground for an increased period of time a good thing to increase revenues through extra time for drink/food/merchandise
- I'm deluded that refs might let a game drag on
- I'm deluded that broadcasters might use further breaks in games (which cost them money to buy the rights to) to shoehorn in adverts (which generate cash).

Your suggestion for a minimum of 60 minutes of ball in play is a nice idea but getting from 37mins (the neil back example before) game time out of 80 mins to 60mins would mean even leaving things as they are now in a ratio of ball in play to minutes for the game would have about 130 mins from first whistle to final whistle. Then add in additional fatigue on players, which could increase injuries/stoppages and 60mins of play could be up towards two and half hours start to end.

IRB produced stats on the ELV's and player welfare. Part of it analysed the ball in play time and it’s no where near 60 mins

Year Matches Running time* Ball in play time Ball in play %
2000 48 85.6 ± 2.7 37.6 ± 2.5 44%
2001 58 87.4 ± 3.2 36.9 ± 2.8 42%
2002 48 87.1 ± 3.0 37.6 ± 2.7 43%
2003 48 87.2 ± 2.7 37.6 ± 2.7 43%
2004 48 88.6 ± 3.1 37.2 ± 2.6 42%
2005 48 89.3 ± 2.6 35.8 ± 2.5 40%
2006 70 90.1 ± 3.3 36.9 ± 2.6 41%
2007 77 89.0 ± 2.6 35.8 ± 2.3 40%
2008 77 88.5 ± 3.0 38.9 ± 2.8 44%

Full analysis here

http://www.irbplayerwelfare.com/?documentid=28

Basically, the fans are rorted. Things like kicking, scrums, lineouts obviously take time but looking at older videos of games, when a knock on took place the scrum was set immediately and they just got on with it – no ar$ing around like they do these days. No wonder RL is perceived to be a better product, the ball in play will be far higher, I’d guess probably up around 75% giving fans far more 'bang for their buck'. You need only compare what Fox pays for the NRL compared to the world's marquee Union comps in the 3N and Super XV