So there won't be a link or anything to this info, or even a year of publication ?

Seems like a strange piece of research really, what was his point and how did it point to a better product, how did he take his measurements and how many games did he make them over, and was he methodical in his selection of games or did he just pick the worst of one and the best of the other - you can see how daft this sort of thing can be can't you and its starting on the assumption that "minutes in play" equates to a far superior product whereas the popularity of all three individual other sports that you mention is greater than the parochial interest in RL, how would you explain that - a lack of concern over publishing this amateur research perhaps ?

You can't ignore the fact that there is no competition for possession in league. You can't physically (apart from the extremely rare 1:1 ball steal) contest possession. In Union every ruck and maul, lineout - and to a lesser extent - scrum is a contest for possession. The purpose of the PTB in RL is to remove that contest and was designed to speed up the game and keep the ball in play more. That one difference - the contest for possession - fundamentally changes everything from the way you use the ball to the size, shape and skill set of every player on the pitch.

I cant help it if mediocrity has always appealed to the masses.

IMHO all 3 alternatives are inferior products.

I have given you the reference for the research if you don't accept it then that's fine. I never said it pointed to a better product, that's a subjective matter.

I`m just expressing a personal preference. If others want to watch 27 minutes of play compressed into 80 minutes then that's their problem.

Well you haven't really, you've picked a number from memory and told us that Phil Larder told you but you can't pinpoint it to a year, not very scientific is it ?

On the other hand you could look at research like this rlhttp://www.theroar.com.au/2012/09/03/how-long-is-a-rugby-match-really/rl based on the 2011 RWC in NZ, and before you start chirping that 36 minutes isn't very long for the ball to be in play have a scroll down to the foot of the page and read where the lost time was on average across all of the 2011 RWC games - you'll see that approx 23.5 minutes are lost at forming scrums and lineouts (up to the moment that the ball is released into the scrum/lineout).

Now its a given that RL scrums are far less sophisticated affairs consisting of two sets of lightweight players touching palms for three seconds, and lineouts just don't exist, but in RL there are delays in forming scrums so lets allow, say 5 mins for those which leaves 18.5 minutes of delays that don't exist in RL - and thats all, everything else on that list will also occur in a game of RL and if a similar in depth analysis was made that didn't involve Phil Larder and the back of a fag packet you'd probably get a figure that places the two codes much closer than the one that you suggested, scientifically closer.

And then it all boils down to whether or not you think 18 mins is a good way to spend time preparing for two tactical restart methods that just don't exist in RL, those who pay at the gate (in greater numbers) to watch the scrummaging spectacle would agree that it is an equitable way to spend that time.

Some similar research (scientific research) rlhttp://www.rfu.com/takingpart/fitness/rugbydemands/ballinplayrl

Thanks for the links pretty much seem to confirm things much as I see them

Those "Phil Larder" ball in play numbers have never been in doubt have they? Its been analysed many, many times. www.voxy.co.nz/sport/nrl-vs-supe ... /971/28136 I'm not sure I would describe the "crouch - set - touch - engage" pantomime, followed by a blatant feed, as sophisticated or a spectacle, Rugby Union scrums are little different to those in League in terms of restarting the game, other than taking much longer.

Those "Phil Larder" ball in play numbers have never been in doubt have they? Its been analysed many, many times. www.voxy.co.nz/sport/nrl-vs-supe ... /971/28136 I'm not sure I would describe the "crouch - set - touch - engage" pantomime, followed by a blatant feed, as sophisticated or a spectacle, Rugby Union scrums are little different to those in League in terms of restarting the game, other than taking much longer.

Thanks for the link.

The difference is its very very technical and therefore beyond our parochial minds

Steve McNamara best be 'swotting' up on his Union attacking skills....

That dirty foul on Alun Rees ruined his Leeds career.I don't think it was his first game though,he was showing real promise up that two fisted smash by Holden of Oldham.He only played 36 games.sorry to go off track

What !! These enlightened supporters of the superior code retreat to the bar if deprived of the Union scrum spectacle !!! They have no interest in the handling / running aspects of the game then ???

The link to the article I provided seems to suggest otherwise hence the recent rule changes introduced to their scrums in an effort to increase the live in-play element,

You might find Union more competitive, but I just see mostly brute force which, has always, will appeal to the more simple minded. 4.84033203125:5