A club doctor can tell the NRL match official that due to heat any game can be played in quarters. He can also instruct them that the trainers are allowed on more often, moving away from the rules, to help hydrate players. You don't often see this as it tends to happen more pre-season when it's mid summer or when the juniors are playing. I recall a club doctor not allowing a game to continue in Penrith with the U18s as the temp rose to the mid 40s!!!

As I said, playing a game in quarters with a 3 min break isn't a problem.

As for being worried about losing players to Union or AFL, that's the normal paranoia that comes from insecurity here driven by the media unfortunately. We've lost a handful or so in the last decade. Now compare that to the people who play it.

I have been hung, drawn and quartered for implying as much, but some posters thrive on their online image of defenders of the RL faith too much...there really is no code war. In the case of Union, before I started following the Broncos, I never even gave league a second glance unless it happened to be on the BBC and there was nothing else on.....

I'm pretty sure that a Catalans / Warrington game a few seasons ago was played in 4 quarters because of the heat, I can't remember which season exactly it was though. (zero points to anyone who replies with 'summer').

June 2008 IIRC......it was rather warm in the south of France.

There's a big difference between 4 quarters with kick-offs etc and simply stopping the game for a quick drinks break. No-one minds the latter when it's hot, the former however would have a big impact on how the game is currently played and in my view isn't necessary or beneficial.

....not in the UK, you are correct.
..................but in Australia, where the size of the TV deal is EVERYTHING over the state of stadiums, the youth development or lack of it and at all costs, and everything must be bigger than that of other sports, they will bend over for TV and gladly change the rules in return for a quick fix.
Events earlier this year pointed to clues as to exactly how much a great number of NRL teams are banking on a much bigger cheque for TV.....some have bet the house on it and can't afford to lose.
Rooster will correct me if I am wrong, but the only reason for this is revenue......it will bring nothing more to the game.

Wtf are you going on with now troll?

Do you ever post without lying?

the nrl are well aware of any proposed changes may slow the game down (ala NFL) and will not be going down this path.

what has been suggested is quick ad breaks after tries, scums, drop outs etc.

LEK, who are advising the nrl on their upcoming TV broadcast deal have advised the NRL that introducing these minor changes and similar will add $70 million pa to the TV deal

divided by 18 NRL clubs (given nrl expansion by 2 new clubs in perth and brisbane) means extra revenue per club of over 3 million per club

As long as the essence of the game is unchanged im all for anything that gives our clubs more money

im not a fan of 4 quarters football that would slow the game way too much.

And too the people on this thread questioning a need to raise revenue i would advise this is lunacy. this is a professional sport and a business. as such we need to maximise our revenues where possible so that we can invest more money into juniors, give our players a badly needed pay rise, give more to each club and expand the game nationally.

Sport is a business and businesses need to make money to survive and grow.
Media is the biggest source of this income, what is wrong with that?

Without the media deal in the UK a decade ago the Game in England would be all but dead by now.

you must have big hands then

the nrl has lost around 20 or more players to RU including origin players like gower, craig wing

mark gasnier, tuqiri, sailor and rogers all returned from their union stints lesser players who never reached previous form

NRL fans would rather their stars stay there than play a rival sport which uses their signings as a way to encroach on RLs territory

higher salary cap would also ensure the 90 or so ex NRL players whove departed to Super League wouldve remained if their club wanted too

with a larger cap well have much deeper playing squads and the quality of the NRL would improve further as injuries wont harm clubs individuals performances as much

given all the players the nrl develops its only fair it has much better playing depth and only a poor TV deal last time has prevented this with Super League, union and AFL all taking our players

with over 100 of our locally developed players taken elsewhere this is a significant issue for the nrl to rectify

Ice hockey? I went to a Boston game a few years and the game stopped with the puck in play, someone told me it was for adverts.