Quarters instead of two halves?

[Bedfordshire Bronco 1,895]

New faster paced game. Maybe we go to quarters? Keep the pace up, less injuries? 

Or a longer half time break? 

35 minute a side in two halves? 

Also makes the game day experience longer.... And by that I mean more drinking time

Just opening a debate - not convinced any of those good ideas myself but worth a chat maybe

[Sir Kevin Sinfield 2,360]

No 

[johnh1 918]

Don’t think a longer half time break is a good idea. They would need to do another warm up. I wouldn’t object to a short break of say 2 minutes in the middle of each half.

[Eddie 4,179]

I think it’s fine as it is, plenty of time for drinking before and after too

[Number 16 1,550]

4 x 20 but only if the change increases the game's value to broadcasters. 

[Mr Plow 1,209]

If the game decides to scrap scrums and keep 6 again permanently I think matches will be shorter rather than playing 4 quarters

[JonM 2,987]

19 minutes ago, Mr Plow said:

If the game decides to scrap scrums and keep 6 again permanently I think matches will be shorter rather than playing 4 quarters

Games are already a good bit longer than they used to be - you could expect a 3:00 KO to be done by 4:35 when I started watching - it's more like 5:00 these days. 

Making the game shorter or having more breaks tilts the balance more towards size and away from 80 minute endurance, just like more interchanges does.

[DavidM 10,483]

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Also makes the game day experience longer.

On sky matches they’ll never end 

[Southerner 319]

I’d go 3x thirds of 25 mins but then you’re potentially seen as decreasing the value of  game. 
 

This would certainly help solve some issues regarding injuries.
 

Even though reducing the game time by 5 mins may not be popular with broadcasters, I believe the product would improve which would balance the books.

[marklaspalmas 1,763]

https://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php?/topic/350903-brian-mcdermott’s-four-quarters-idea/&tab=comments#comment-4342728

 

[Rupert Prince 1,680]

2 minutes ago, Southerner said:

I’d go 3x thirds of 25 mins but then you’re potentially seen as decreasing the value of  game. 
 

This would certainly help solve some issues regarding injuries.
 

Even though reducing the game time by 5 mins may not be popular with broadcasters, I believe the product would improve which would balance the books.

More gaps means more advertising time.

[bobbruce 2,840]

It doesn’t need to be full quarter breaks just have a couple of minutes drinks break around the 20 min mark. Then hopefully we could bin off water carriers during the game. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco 1,895]

3 hours ago, bobbruce said:

It doesn’t need to be full quarter breaks just have a couple of minutes drinks break around the 20 min mark. Then hopefully we could bin off water carriers during the game. 

We do that on hot days in third team rugby union...

... .. I get the irony that we'd yet another break! 

[Harry Stottle 4,227]

5 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

New faster paced game. Maybe we go to quarters? Keep the pace up, less injuries? 

Or a longer half time break? 

35 minute a side in two halves? 

Also makes the game day experience longer.... And by that I mean more drinking time

Just opening a debate - not convinced any of those good ideas myself but worth a chat maybe

Can we please then reduce the interchanges to 2?

[Harry Stottle 4,227]

3 hours ago, Southerner said:

I’d go 3x thirds of 25 mins but then you’re potentially seen as decreasing the value of  game. 
 

This would certainly help solve some issues regarding injuries.
 

Even though reducing the game time by 5 mins may not be popular with broadcasters, I believe the product would improve which would balance the books.

So on the toss of a coin in inclement weather conditions, one team cold benefit from them twice as much, conversely one team could be playing agaisnt them twice as much, not a good idea really is it Southerner that is way we play in two equal halves.

[Padge 6,466]

I'd go with an on pitch 2 minute break at 20 and 60 minutes and keep the water (message) carrying nuisances off the pitch.

I think it would add value to broadcast rights and allow for teams getting a tonking a chance to re-group, Hull could probably have made a better game of it today if after 20 minutes under the cosh they could re-group and have some considered input.

[GUBRATS 5,048]

5 hours ago, Southerner said:

I’d go 3x thirds of 25 mins but then you’re potentially seen as decreasing the value of  game. 
 

This would certainly help solve some issues regarding injuries.
 

Even though reducing the game time by 5 mins may not be popular with broadcasters, I believe the product would improve which would balance the books.

Who plays into the wind twice ?

[yipyee 1,024]

16 hours ago, Number 16 said:

4 x 20 but only if the change increases the game's value to broadcasters. 

It would because they could add in an advertising break

[Eddie 4,179]

Eight eighths of ten minutes each would be good. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Eddie

[rlno1 248]

18 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

New faster paced game. Maybe we go to quarters? Keep the pace up, less injuries? 

Or a longer half time break? 

35 minute a side in two halves? 

Also makes the game day experience longer.... And by that I mean more drinking time

Just opening a debate - not convinced any of those good ideas myself but worth a chat maybe

I think quarters should be tried for the Challenge Cup. Would help to keep smaller clubs in the contest as the bigger clubs wouldn't get a roll on with momentum and fitness. Help make more of a contest.

[Copa 4,775]

If it increases game income significantly or if sound research shows a significant reduction in injuries, then it should be done. If those two scenarios aren’t relevant then it should only be done if the weather is really hot.

[Tex Evans Thigh 1,366]

Headbutt a knife.

[GUBRATS 5,048]

12 hours ago, Padge said:

I'd go with an on pitch 2 minute break at 20 and 60 minutes and keep the water (message) carrying nuisances off the pitch.

I think it would add value to broadcast rights 

This 

[Yorks Tim 168]

13 hours ago, Padge said:

I'd go with an on pitch 2 minute break at 20 and 60 minutes and keep the water (message) carrying nuisances off the pitch.

I think it would add value to broadcast rights and allow for teams getting a tonking a chance to re-group, Hull could probably have made a better game of it today if after 20 minutes under the cosh they could re-group and have some considered input.

Gets my vote too.

Would be interested to know how much it would help the players with the faster-paced game. 

[redjonn 1,310]

Lets just go the whole hog and make it American football isk... change the rules some more and we have a game for North America

Sod the rest of us...