Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
@MiketheSnow interesting stats, but gee, 80 odd minutes and we get less than 40 mins on average in play...
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@MiketheSnow interesting stats, but gee, 80 odd minutes and we get less than 40 mins on average in play...
34mins average in last RWC, 26mins in 1995. This is as good as it's ever been
The length of the stoppages is more of an issue
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@MiketheSnow interesting stats, but gee, 80 odd minutes and we get less than 40 mins on average in play...
34mins average in last RWC, 26mins in 1995. This is as good as it's ever been
The length of the stoppages is more of an issue
@Duluth well yeah its great it is trending up, but still, alot of wasted time.
Also interesting seeing Fiji and Wales feature in there more than any other team, but I guess the opposition dictates how quick you can play the game.
Obviously even high scoring games are not immune from mass stoppages or wasted minutes, given we like to play at pace yet our mammoth scoring efforts in pool play are well down.
-
@Duluth said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
I think the best ever quarter finals might be followed by the worst semi finals
i'm not ready to declare that, but the draw that made the quarters so good does sort of look like that
Fuck i hope we are the two score game, i can't go through Sunday morning 3 weekends in a row (yes i am getting ahead of myself)
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
(yes i am getting ahead of myself)
Booked your ticker tape parade yet?
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
(yes i am getting ahead of myself)
Booked your ticker tape parade yet?
@NTA said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
(yes i am getting ahead of myself)
Booked your ticker tape parade yet?
sssshhh, the Tier 1 countries are talking. You minnows have had your time in the sun
-
@MiketheSnow interesting stats, but gee, 80 odd minutes and we get less than 40 mins on average in play...
@taniwharugby would have nice to see whom the official was for each game
-
@taniwharugby would have nice to see whom the official was for each game
@Steven-Harris good point, they play a big part too.
Assume the stat gurus must also have a breakdown of how many times refs stop the clock too?
-
I had a look at all this a while back to see why I was falling out of love with the game. Aside from the frustrations of Foster's coaching and seeming lackadaisical approach to losses and records.
Time in play largely dependent upon number of set piece restarts. A penalty takes time and leads directly to a lineout or shot at goal. A scrum penalty started with a scrum, possibly a reset, before a penalty, then a lineout. It can take minutes out of a match, with the walk down field, lineout formation. Throw in a crooked throw leading to another scrum and you've had time to walk the dog before it starts again.
Mistakes leading to scrums is the other factor, so risk aversion of sides is relevant. Number of offloads, 50/50 plays. There are now half the number of off loads than at 1987 RWC and twice as many phases per possession.
Basically, as @duluth said, ball is actually in play longer. The real problem is the total time the game takes. 2 hours for 38ish minutes is an awful lot with nothing happening. They introduced protocols about getting injured players off, etc but none of it happens.
-
-
@Duluth well yeah its great it is trending up, but still, alot of wasted time.
Also interesting seeing Fiji and Wales feature in there more than any other team, but I guess the opposition dictates how quick you can play the game.
Obviously even high scoring games are not immune from mass stoppages or wasted minutes, given we like to play at pace yet our mammoth scoring efforts in pool play are well down.
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Obviously even high scoring games are not immune from mass stoppages or wasted minutes,
This is unsurprising, every try has at least a minute for the conversion built into and fluffing either side before and after it leading to the kick off.
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Obviously even high scoring games are not immune from mass stoppages or wasted minutes,
This is unsurprising, every try has at least a minute for the conversion built into and fluffing either side before and after it leading to the kick off.
@Nepia said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Obviously even high scoring games are not immune from mass stoppages or wasted minutes,
This is unsurprising, every try has at least a minute for the conversion built into and fluffing either side before and after it leading to the kick off.
What constitutes ball in play?
-
@Snowy said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
If anyone is interested:
That's why I am quite keen on the 'nipple line' tackle everywhere. Arms free, offloads, faster game, and it will have to happen anyway with the head impact legal stuff. Defenders will have to realise that sometimes you can't legally stop a player, if they get themselves to that point, good on them\
-
I don’t think we need the ball in play any more than it is already. Players are already rooted after 60-70mins, look at the last 10 of the NZ v Ireland or the France v SA game for the obvious fatigue setting in. And that’s after using the bench.
Time wasting should be clamped down on, but that’s all I’d focus on
-
Yup I think more ball in play and smaller benches = less humungous giants so less impact damage.
@Machpants said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Yup I think more ball in play and smaller benches = less humungous giants so less impact damage.
I'm definitely onboard with the "8 reserves but you can only use [4] of them" idea if we could get around the gaming for injuries
-
@Machpants said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Yup I think more ball in play and smaller benches = less humungous giants so less impact damage.
I'm definitely onboard with the "8 reserves but you can only use [4] of them" idea if we could get around the gaming for injuries
@voodoo said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@Machpants said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Yup I think more ball in play and smaller benches = less humungous giants so less impact damage.
I'm definitely onboard with the "8 reserves but you can only use [4] of them" idea if qwe could get around the gaming for injuries
Boks already gaming injuries with HIA, to go with their slow down tactics on field. For me if someone has to come off, then you play with one less player after your 4/5 (I say 5, front row, one forward, one back) - it does already happen some times with the benches cleared
-
@Machpants said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Yup I think more ball in play and smaller benches = less humungous giants so less impact damage.
I'm definitely onboard with the "8 reserves but you can only use [4] of them" idea if we could get around the gaming for injuries
@voodoo said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@Machpants said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Yup I think more ball in play and smaller benches = less humungous giants so less impact damage.
I'm definitely onboard with the "8 reserves but you can only use [4] of them" idea if we could get around the gaming for injuries
I would favour something like having an 8 man bench, with:
- unlimited subs for (genuine) injuries
- 2 tactical subs at anytime in the match
- the 2 tactical subs comprise 1 forward tactical sub and 1 back tactical sub
-
@voodoo said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@Machpants said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Yup I think more ball in play and smaller benches = less humungous giants so less impact damage.
I'm definitely onboard with the "8 reserves but you can only use [4] of them" idea if we could get around the gaming for injuries
I would favour something like having an 8 man bench, with:
- unlimited subs for (genuine) injuries
- 2 tactical subs at anytime in the match
- the 2 tactical subs comprise 1 forward tactical sub and 1 back tactical sub
-
I would be happy with Gardiner getting the final. In fact he would be my best choice.
I know there has been some whinging from the neutrals but I thought he was excellent today.
@Damo said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
I would be happy with Gardiner getting the final. In fact he would be my best choice.
I know there has been some whinging from the neutrals but I thought he was excellent today.
I don't see him getting the final, he's behind Barnes and Raynal in WRs eyes I think
