Actual lengths of matches in sports - an observation

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

I was in a sports pub in Leyland yesterday to watch the Lions test, which kicked off at 17:00. I noticed that at 17:15 they switched a couple of screens over to the FA Community Shield match. Although I wasn't paying too much attention to the latter, I did switch attention when the ref blew the final whistle in the Rugby, to notice that the football was in the 3rd minute of time added on and had a minute to go.

So the Rugby test, an 80 minute game with no added time (there was no 'beyond 80 minute' final possession phase yesterday, the Boks were in possession at that point and kicked it out) took precisely the same amount of time as a 90 minute game of football that kicked off 15 minutes later. So 25 minutes longer, in total. I don't remember any unusual stoppages in the test match, just a couple of moments when trainers were on for injuries.

I know they stop the clock in Rugby for dead ball moments, it was just the first time I'd seen two games "side by side on the clock" so to speak.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

I didn't see the game but heard Warren Gatland on the radio in the build up complaining about the time taken for the previous test, probably from the same press conference quoted here:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ica-test-rugby

[Snake Plissken]

There was a great tweet about the length of the first half of the Second Test - "The Lions are ahead 9-6 at lunch on the opening day".

[Janik]

Isn’t the time of the ball in play in most Football matches only 65 minutes or so? Which completely corresponds with Ray’s experience and suggests if Football did similar dead ball clock stopping then a game of that would last for pushing three hours.

International and European club Hockey matches generally are in the 90-100 minute range for a sport where the actual playing time is 60 mins (traditional was 70, but got cut by 10 mins when dead ball clock stopping came in).

[Patrick Thistle]

It's fun explaining to ice hockey noobs that there are three quarters of 20 minutes but they can take twice as long because of the stoppages.

[Ray de Galles]

"three quarters"?

[Ray de Galles]

Isn’t the time of the ball in play in most Football matches only 65 minutes or so? Which completely corresponds with Ray’s experience and suggests if Football did similar dead ball clock stopping then a game of that would last for pushing three hours.

International and European club Hockey matches generally are in the 90-100 minute range for a sport where the actual playing time is 60 mins (traditional was 70, but got cut by 10 mins when dead ball clock stopping came in).

If you're going to start confusing me with Rogin they you'll be hearing from my lawyer!

WFD's right though, this Lions series (and the middle test in particular) have had an issue with the amount of time taken to complete the halves of rugby.

Gatland's tactics have always been to keep the ball in play and limit stoppages which help opponents to recover because he places a huge importance on fitness in the final twenty minutes of games.

South Africa would always want a slower game with stoppages to recover because of the physical intensity of their play, especially for forwards at set pieces. This will have been exacerbated by their complete lack of test rugby in the lead up to the tour.

[caja-dglh]

If you're going to start confusing me with Rogin they you'll be hearing from my lawyer!

It is probably the most Ray post from him out of 28,730.

[Ray de Galles]

Hmmmm, I'm not quite sure what you're saying there...or that I want to know!

[caja-dglh]

Hmmmm, I'm not quite sure what you're saying there...or that I want to know!

Comparative sports pondering involving Rugby. It is surprisingly thoughtful for Rogin vs the thousands of "Liverpool are nailed on to lose this weekend" reverse jinx work.

[Hot Pepsi]

One reason football/soccer has grown in the US is the games are reliably about two hours long including halftime. That's good for TV schedules and taking kids to matches.

[Patrick Thistle]

"three quarters"?

Well, yeah, three "periods" but it's more fun to say quarters and watch them look all confused.

(And overtime is the fourth quarter ... if it's needed)

[ursus arctos]

NFL gridiron matches famously average about eleven minutes of active play over the course of a four hour broadcast

[Greenlander]

NFL gridiron matches famously average about eleven minutes of active play over the course of a four hour broadcast

Which equates to about three hours of active play over the course of the regular season. That's really not much considering all the bluster around the sport.

[Janik]

If you're going to start confusing me with Rogin they you'll be hearing from my lawyer!

Oops. Sorry, Sarah.

[Janik]

Which equates to about three hours of active play over the course of the regular season. That's really not much considering all the bluster around the sport.

It may explain why there is so much bluster around the sport. You need something to fill all those dead hours of the broadcasts.

[ursus arctos]

Exactly

Also worth remembering that those eleven minutes are split among offence, defence and "special teams", so that any individual player being active for more than six minutes is unusual

[Satchmo Distel]

Presumably if you increased the the amount of active time in each sport, there would be a lot of pressure to allow more subs and longer gaps between games? It clearly would never happen in European football, for example, because the business model is two games a week, whilst major tournaments take place in hot summer climates.

Arguably some styles of play - 90 minutes of pressing - are already becoming unfeasible and there's a limit to how much running you can ask even the most superfit players to do without chemical assistance (which may have health risks).

[ursus arctos]

Why would you need to keep the current durations?

One could change football to 60-70 minutes of active play, for instance. Marcotti has been advocating that for at least 15 years.