A game of four quarters.

[ex-manager]

After reading a report that FIFA are playing down the idea of introducing quarters to allow drink breaks in order to prevent dehydration during this years World Cup in Japan it brings back the idea that perhaps Rugby League could benifit from introducing this.

Perhaps a maximum time limit of 2 or 3minutes to allow players to take in fluids and some on-field instructions from the coach. It could also be an incentive for advertisers if the game was divided into 20 minute quarters rather than 40 minutes each way.

 

[imported_Kaon]

I thing that really used to be the strength of Rugby League was the endurance aspect. This was reduced with the advent of the interchange and trainers but it is still a major part of the game.

Looking at it from another point of view would be if a team has 3 tackles left and the break coming up, they might be tempted to do something out of the ordinary.

Overall, I wouldn't like because it would just slow the game down.

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

From a TV point of view four quarter games would be ideal. TV producers wouldn't have to interupt the telecast of play to show their ads.

The old preseason comps years ago featuring country teams were far less one sided affairs because fitness was less of a factor in favour of the top sides because of the four quarters.

I'd like to see it given a go in preseason games just to see what effect it would have on the 2002 version of the game. I'm thinking it would be good for forward rotation because you could just about make all your scheduled rotations at the breaks, thereby keeping a more cohesive feel to the team.

The breaks would also prevent teams getting a 'roll on' in attack, thereby helping to stem some of the blow out scorelines we have seen in recent years.

The four quarters could be brought in at the same time as a time limit on kickers shooting for goal, which should increase the actual amount of action in a game.

The end result of this for TV would be four quarters of faster paced football (because of less tired players and more time for actual play), ad free, with regular ad breaks that don't interupt the viewing.

It would be worth a look IMO.

 

[imported_Outlaw]

I always thought that one of the main reasons why rugby league is often considered the greatest game of all is because of the speed and non-stop pace it's played.
Wouldn't it lose much of its appeal and turn more towards the American style of football where an 80 minute game runs for 3 hours?
I don't know how the fans would appreciate that...if at all.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[imported_Mystery Man]

I think it's a great idea, but, like Roopy, I'd like to see some changes to speed the game up. These are the changes that I would like to see : <ul> [*]Replace scrums with a handover of possession when there is a knock-on or forward pass. Scrums slow the game down, and this can become particularly boring in a game with poor handling. League has evolved to the point where scrums are of little importance - the game is about running the ball, and that is what we should be encouraging. [*]Replace scrums with a goal-line drop-out when a team is held up over the line. [*]When the ball is kicked into touch or there is going to be a goal-line drop-out, the clock shouldcontinue for 30 seconds. If the scrum hasn't set, or the drop-out hasn't been taken, within this time, the clock should stop, only restarting when play resumes. [*]Time out to be called when kicks for goal are being taken.[/list] The effect that these changes would have would be to speed the game up by eliminating stoppages brought about by scrums, increase the amount of game time, and stop players from wasting time in order to wind down the clock. As these changes would result in a faster, slightly longer game, quarter-time breaks would be justifiable. Quarter-time breaks would be great for live telecasts of big games like the state of origin and the grand final. These matches draw massive audiences, but allow very few opportunities, in their current form,for advertisement breaks. By adopting quarters, television stations could greatly increase their revenue by having more ads, and this would result in league being a more attractive product.

 

[imported_Hazy]

I personally dont like the idea of making league "better for television".

Rugby League should appeal to the players (kids) as a game worth playing ona suburban field. - that you dont have to have all the lights and sirens to be a on a'good thing'

and the endurance aspect of league would be lost by going from halves to quarters.

 

[Willow]

The quarter time breaks are used in the pre season and have been experimented in mid-week competitions in the past. They have also been used when the season started in the heat last year. At the time I recallthat the quarter time break received a lot of criticism.

It doesnt really work in the fast paced game and imo, it is less entertaining to have a major stoppage every twenty minutes. You'd barely be getting a game plan and then you'd be back in the sheds...no, not a good idea imho.

As for scrums...bring 'em back with a proper feed and make the hooker earn his keep. The only way to do this is to abolish the scrum penalty and replace it with a handover in the event of an infringement.

It wasnt the scrum that was at fault, it was the interpretation of the rules and the plague of penalties that sawscrums as we knew them get killed off. To get rid of scrums altogether would destroy the spectacle of back line movements when the forwards are out of the way.

While your at it, bring back markers striking in the play-the-ball area....

 

[ex-manager]

One argument I have come across is that teams tend to put pressure on their opponents at the 30 and 60 minuteperiods of a match. But isn't this one reason perhaps why dominant sides are blowing away their opponents?

I admit that quarters would see a move away from some aspects of the present game and that the intensity might become a victim, heaven forbid!

BTW, there'd be no going to the sheds at quarter and three quarter time, just a short break with the players staying on the pitch.

 

[Willow]

I was talking figuratively when I said 'going to the sheds.' Yeah, the two opposingteamsusually keep a nice safe distant from each other as the coach and trainers come to them.
OK then,we have some'positives' that will come out of quarter time breaks.

In particular, the players will have a better chance to recharge themselves. But also, it will be better for TV.

I also have no doubt that the extra two breaks would be a benefit to the older players just as the ill-fated 'unlimited interchange' did. We might even seethe large slow moving one,Lazzo making a comeback if we had both extra breaks and unlimited interchange. Imagine that.

However, we would lose the time hounoured tradition of teams slowly gaining the ascendancy and grinding their opposites into the ground.

There have been some blow outs but I feel that these have been overstated somewhat. However, its true that they usually begin around the 60 minute mark but we have also seen teams come back from that point as they get a 'second wind'. This being because one team has 'paced' themselves better.
With the exception of the 99 G/Final, 'comebacks' are a tremendous aspect of any sport.