Rugby World Cup general discussion

taniwharugby

@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?

Snowy

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.

Snowy

If anyone is interested:

https://www.statsperform.com/resource/revolutionising-rugby-a-statistical-analysis-on-how-the-game-has-evolved/

Kirwan

Very interesting to see those ball in play stats so high, that really didn't help Ireland - who it was notable weren't able to fake injuries to slow everything down this time.

Nepia

@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.

frugby

@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?

Machpants

@Snowy said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:

If anyone is interested:

https://www.statsperform.com/resource/revolutionising-rugby-a-statistical-analysis-on-how-the-game-has-evolved/

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\

voodoo

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

Machpants

Yup I think more ball in play and smaller benches = less humungous giants so less impact damage.

voodoo

@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

@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

junior

@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

Machpants

@junior said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:

unlimited subs for (genuine) injuries

Hard to enforce, cf Boks HIA.

Damo

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.

canefan

@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

Catogrande

@canefan

I don’t want to see Barnes anywhere near the final as that would suggest England will be there.

In terms of ability only though, I wouldn’t have an issue with any of Barnes, Reynal, BOK or Gardner. They have all proved their worth and they all have their quirks and dodgy moments.