The 100 Minute Game: What would it mean for NRLCEO?
The NRL threw up a doozy this week with the idea of changing to 100 minute games played over four quarters.
Clearly the NRL boffins are like the rest of us and prefer to procrastinate on things like this instead say, figuring out the draw or stopping clubs from releasing such god awful Nines jerseys.
But how would a 100 minute game effect all things NRLCEO, especially in regard to workhorse tries?
Currently an 80 minute game requires a forward to have 40 involvements so the natural change would see that lifted to 50. However given that the radical proposal also suggests extending the interchange bench from 4 to 8, will an increase in game length automatically lead to an increase in game time for forwards?
In my view, yes. Have you seen how teams play when you take out a handful of their best players during Origin? NRL coaches will be loathe to have their best players spending extended periods on the bench whilst players currently regarded as fringe players fill in. I think such a change would see our leading workhorses play even more minutes and rack up more involvements.
But upping the criteria to say 60 would also be problematic as well. A 25% increase in game length would also see a rise in stats across the board. More tries, more try assists, more 40/20s. It seems a little unfair to tax the forwards whilst the backs have more time to rack up tries.
Based on the last 6 rounds of this season, for every workhorse try scored there were 1.3 actual tries scored. Yes some of those would have come from forwards but I would hate to see an imbalance that saw that gap widen because the job of a workhorse was made harder while the task of a show pony back was made far easier.
Whatever the number would be, it should be the least of our concerns. The greater concern is how much a change like this is the tail wagging the dog.
A 100 minute game is 100% TV driven and whilst I have no problem with broadcasters trying to maximise their revenue, I do if it’s to the detriment of the product.
We all love our footy, but not every game is a classic. How much value does an advertiser get if fans are switching off at three quarter time because it’s a blow out?
And don’t get me started on the fact that clubs will be able to use longer games with more entertainment as way of justifying higher ticket prices. The NRL needs to channel their energies into making attending a game more affordable not less.
In the age of T20 cricket, tweets of 140 characters and 6 second Vine videos I find it interesting that the NRL thinks making a game longer is the way of the future. The notion of this ever getting up is hard to fathom. Besides, this story had come from the desk of Phil Rothfield. Last I heard no one at the NRL was talking to him so who knows where the story came from and if anyone really supports it.
Geoff Adams
Latest posts by Geoff Adams (see all)
- 2018 Workhorse Watch Awards - September 3, 2018
- Workhorse Watch – Round 24 - August 29, 2018
- Workhorse Watch – Round 23 - August 22, 2018
