Super Rugby Pacific gladly made itself a guinea pig for the global game back in 2022 when it decided to introduce innovations designed to kill the volume of dead time and generate a higher volume of ball-in-play content.
It was a move that had two distinct goals. The first was to regenerate fan interest in a competition that had lost its way since 2016 due to ill-conceived expansion plans.
Super Rugby had been the most vibrant and engaging club competition when it launched in 1996, but by 2016, when it encompassed four continents, 16 time zones and had 18 teams, it collapsed under its own weight.
When Covid then hit in 2020 and led to New Zealand closing its borders for two years, the competition had to endure more restructuring and geographical repositioning, and yet more fans walked away from it.
As much as anything else, the introduction of an empowerment plan for officials to speed up how long it takes to set scrums and take goal-kicks, as well as lessening the influence of the TMO, was about giving the competition a story to sell to fans.
It was a way of sending a message that Super Rugby was going to put fans back at the core of its thinking and do all it could to produce the sort of high-impact, aerobic rugby that connects so well with the Southern Hemisphere psyche.
It was also an opportunity to show the rest of the world, but particularly administrators in the Northern Hemisphere, what rugby could look like with a few minor tweaks that didn’t mess with its foundations.
Dead time has decreased by more than six minutes per game since 2022. It’s come through making micro savings in various facets of the game that have historically been enabled to drag on for too long.
The plan was to produce faster, more dynamic contests that brought the fans back and then use the evidence to persuade the North that there needed to be universal adoption of some of the behaviours and innovations that were being trialled.
And after 10 rounds of Super Rugby in 2024, the evidence is mounting to support the logic of the plan.
Data has been released to show that dead time has decreased by more than six minutes per game since 2022.
It’s come through making micro savings in various facets of the game that have historically been enabled to drag on for too long.
The arrival of a 60-second shot clock on goal-kicks has been instrumental in speeding things up.
In 2022 it was taking an average of 80 seconds between a penalty being awarded and a kick at goal being taken.
That figure dropped to 71 seconds in 2023 and is now at 68 seconds in 2024.
The time lapse between a try being scored and the game being restarted has also been cut in the last three years – from 113 seconds in 2022, to 100 in 2023 and now it sits at 99 seconds.
This stacks up when the average number of tries scored per game sits at 7.5 as it currently does (up from 6.4 in 2022).
Super Rugby has given the Southern Hemisphere the evidential case it needed to present to the rest of the world that playing around in the margins can deliver huge benefits without compromising the gladiatorial nature of the sport or depowering the set-piece.
Critically, given the number of penalties that are kicked to touch, the figures show how much better Super Rugby is managing the dead time involved in this process.
In 2022 it was taking 33 seconds between the referee awarding the penalty and the kicker striking the ball into touch. Now it takes 26 seconds.
These seconds add up, and so too does the time taken by TMOs to adjudicate on tries and foul play, which is another area where Super Rugby has made a critical reduction.
The average number of TMO interventions in 2024 has dropped to 1.3 from 1.6 last year, and on average that translates as 34 seconds less per game being spent checking tries and 38 seconds less per game checking foul play.
The savings have led to the total time per game dropping from 93 minutes and 51 seconds in 2022 to 91 minutes and seven seconds in 2024.
There is also an evidential basis that these changes are helping Super Rugby regenerate its audiences – albeit not as quickly or as dramatically as it was hoped – with Sky TV in New Zealand saying it has seen an 11 per cent lift in overall viewership this year.
Much of this increase is due to making more content available on a free to air channel, and so an 11 per cent rise is not as sensational as it may appear.
But still, Super Rugby has given the Southern Hemisphere – or New Zealand and Australia at least – the evidential case it needed to present to the rest of the world that playing around in the margins can deliver huge benefits without compromising the gladiatorial nature of the sport or depowering the set-piece.
Arguably, Super Rugby has produced an undeniable blueprint that the game should universally empower referees to better manage the dead spots, retain shot clocks for goal-kicks and consider where else they could be introduced to speed things up.
But one other aspect of Super Rugby Pacific that New Zealand and Australia want the rest of the world to embrace remains contentious – and that is the 20-minute red card.
The evidence suggests that teams can stay competitive with a numeric disadvantage for, about, 20 minutes. If a team is shown a red card with more than 20 minutes of a game to go, rarely do they win it.
A vote on whether to universally adopt this will be held on 9 May, but it’s not clear whether it will win the requisite 75 per cent to be passed into law.
Again, New Zealand and Australia, as well as their Sanzaar partners South Africa and Argentina, believe the 20-minute red card – whereby the sent off player can be replaced – is a means of ensuring fans can get to see the contest they paid to watch.
In the South, 20-minute red cards have been used in Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship since 2021 because they believe it’s a better way to preserve the sanctity of the contest, while they would also like to see tougher post-match sanctions imposed on the individual perpetrators to not trivialise the offences.
They don’t believe that lessening the punitive nature of a red card will endanger player safety, and the prevailing view is that rugby can’t sustain meaningful contests when it ends up being 14 versus 15.
The evidence suggests that teams can stay competitive with a numeric disadvantage for, about, 20 minutes.
If a team is shown a red card with more than 20 minutes of a game to go, rarely do they win it.
There are exceptions – England beating Argentina at last year’s World Cup after Tom Curry was sent off after 11 minutes – but mostly a red card in the first half or early in the second, removes any uncertainty of outcome for the fans.
When it’s realised that 30 red cards have been shown in the 160 Tests played between the leading nations since 2021, it’s a significant decision for rugby to ponder.
The current stats show that almost one-in-five Tests are impacted by a red card, but against that, the need to reinforce good tackle technique and preserve player safety is paramount.
Which is why NZR chief executive Mark Robinson is not sure what the outcome of the vote will be.
“There’s always contrasting views on major matters but, by and large, there’s an acknowledgement that what we’re seeing through three years of work through the Rugby Championship and Super Rugby could be a really positive development for the game and a nod to acknowledging we’re listening to fans,” he said recently.
“We want to make sure red card scenarios we’ve seen in recent times don’t limit the nature of the competition.”
What Robinson does know, however, is that if the vote doesn’t pass, Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship will continue with the 20-minute red card ruling regardless because they believe it is the best way for the game to keep fans hooked.
It’s easy for these kiwi “journalists” to throw around meaningless numbers to make it seem that things are improving, but if you look at the stats behind this 11 percent it says that after 10 rounds of rugby there is only a paltry 160k cumulative viewers in total.. That is on average 16k viewers watching a single round of Super Rugby.
I very much doubt any of the other numbers that Gregor so proudly “reports” on.
Haha each NPC game gets twice that alone. 160k was about the number the Warriors got (always the highest viewed game each round) in the NRL before they started going gangbusters.
Would love the read the concoction of your article using your own numbers, would be a good laugh.
Here’s hoping the emphasis on how the tmo interfaces on game infractions is taken into account more seriously than what was adjudicated during the 23 wc. That was a shambles, plus Barnes the abs ref never contested some of the calls, something he’s known for. And then we're left with wr opologizing after the game that smith’s try was legit. I was even more pizzed.
And as for the red card if the infringement is clearly intentional foul then the individual is out of the game and after 20mins the bench replacement comes on. So, there’s then the degree of seriousness taken into account within the 20min stand down.
Not sure why the article doesn’t hit on TMOs this year, that’s were they were putting focus right. The fact the other areas haven’t improved shows just how poor the comp is at focusing on its direction. There should still have been further gains in both those areas this year even it if didn’t have the same focus as others.
The whistle to restart time, like touch finders of 26 seconds, surely has to be a key focus area next year. Why should a side be given so much time to kick for touch? Cut that down to 5 or 10 seconds, penalties both become less of key stalling/defensive strategy, and become more ‘live’ with tap kicks becoming much more favourable quick actions. Theres absolutely no reason we have to wait over 10 secs for the preferred kicker to walk up and try and take maximum advantage, especially when half the time its just a delay tactic to give the forwards time to plan, as the kicker hardly even trys to find the corner with his kick, anyone could have kicked it straight out for the lineout.
Speeding the game up is great, but I think we will find that the increase in viewership this year mostly comes down to the competition being more competitive…the fall of the Crusaders has been a boon for viewership.
This should be at the heart of super rugby changes - how to make the comp more even
Super Rugby Pacific has been better as a spectacle due to the emphasis on speeding the game up and I’d look at taking things a step further. Instead of giving teams 90 seconds to take a conversion, let’s bring that down 60 seconds. You could also look at allowing 45 seconds for a penalty goal. Maybe teams could get 20 seconds instead of 30 to form a scrum before the ref then starts the engagement process.
However, this year the most pleasing change is the added competitiveness in the Trans Tasman matches. What does frustrate me is how the rugby media in Australasia allow the the whole ‘‘rugby is boring’’/’’rugby yawnion’’ narrative to take hold from from vindictive league types, the chairman of the ARL commission and News Limited Australia. Stick up for the game and shift the narrative!
even 30 from when the tee is placed/arrives.
Very frustrating portrayals alright Mitch. I think theres a lot to it but I also don’t like the flip side where official channels (TV broadcasts rave on about positive things nearly as bad as league does in its battle with AFL (not an AFL watcher but I never felt like they were trying hard, simply enjoying their game. have seen some ridiculous activities if you ask me though).
Free to air is the key to fan expansion. I attended last weeks game at Suncorp (Reds v Blues) and the total cost is prohibitive to most people that wish to attend. Two tickets $130, parking (event day gouging) $75, road tolls $20, dinner beforehand $130, plus some petrol and a beer inside the stadium and a single game starts to cost $300-400. Who can afford that week in week out, I’d love to go more but could only afford this one game to see the Blues, I’d have loved to have seen more NZ teams here but I’d need to stop eating or sell a kidney.
That is ridiculously expensive for a night out to a SR game.
You struck the nail right on the head - affordability a huge issue to factor in. The only comment in this article describes attendances by way of sky viewing numbers. Not quite as expensive as uv portrayed, but now i’m a pensioner I gotta pick carefully which games to attend. I have a grandson playing first 15 rugby and I make sure I see his games.
Dead time reductions are important as is ball in play time increases. Premiership leads the way in terms of ball in play and Northern refereeing standards around the breakdown has sped up the game significantly. Super Rugby is trying new things but its not leading the way in terms of making gains in reducing dead time and ball in play time. Northern administrators are also not against speeding up the game, on the contrary they want a faster game and have been trying things and are embracing increasing the speed of rugby. Super Rugby isnt providing a blueprint for anything, its just part the agreed upon blueprint that administrators across the world are moving to.
You’ve made the mistake the main writers of this site have recently of over inflating the importance of BIP time. It does not equal a tight package and the prem would be way behind SR in how quick games are over (dead ball time).
Only more recently Shaylen. The prem, and now others, are doing great with micromanaging of the whistle(stopping the clock), thats for sure, but that’s probably the least important aspect of a good rugby spectacle. I’m happy to bash a pathetically average article though.
Some interesting stats that just proved what my first impression of NZ’s drive to speed up Rugby Union would amount to - fine margins here and there to cut a few seconds off the game and nothing else.
To do more there would have to be wholesale changes to the game like doing away with scrums, lineouts and bringing back the ELV’s to have free kicks instead of penalties.
Very little chance of it happening but, in the end, Ruby Union would be a 15-man version of Rugby League. There are reasons why Rugby Union is globally more popular that Rugby League and what NZ are also not considering is the unintended consequences of what they want to achieve. This will end up turning Rugby Union into a low value product that will not be acceptable to the paying public.
If people really wanted a sped-up version of rugby, then why is Rugby Union globally way more popular than Rugby League?
Rugby lovers all over the world are also not stupid and have seen through what NZ are trying to achieve here, selfishly to bring back their glory days of dominance over every other nation and compete with Rugby League that is dominant in Australasia.
NH countries just don’t have the cattle, or the fantastic weather needed to play like NZ SR franchises do so good luck to whoever has to try and convince the NH to accept going back to the days of NZ dominance and agreeing to wreck the game in the process.
I have serious doubts on the validity of the TV stats presented by GP. All they did was expand the broadcasting base by putting it on free to air, not even any indication of arresting the continued drop in viewership.
Match day attendance goes hand in hand with broadcast ratings so if there was an increase in the one you should expect to see it with the other. However, the drop in match day attendance is very evident to the casual highlights package viewer. The only club who looks to be getting solid attendance is the Drua.
I am calling it now that NZ’s quest to speed up the game will fail and so will the vote on the 20-minute red card.
I think it’s more of a sign of the ineptness of the controlling bodies Wayneo. Note how there were no further gains in last years key areas once they targeted something else. That’s not how (performance) gains work, you will get incrementally less and less, not just completely stop gains after having got like 15/20% the previous year.
Hopefully the new SR advisory board will improve these sort of business aspects a lot, and I’d expect the total time to reduce by another 100%, to be sub 90min. Hell, they could do it by just halving the time teams are allowed to kick for touch. Youre right though, that’s not a zero sum game. The benefits get less and less, and even now the importance should be on improving the play action.
HAHA and all of which will result in NZ’s return to dominance. No side has even been able to match ours in fitness and that will continue into infinity. No, I think it’s more about keeping rugby, rugby, and not allowing it to turn into league were theres all one type of super athlete. The little guys should be allowed to flourish as well. But cheer up, with South Africa’s reformation you also now have lots of little guys running about like snippets!
Pretty sad article though right, to say “yay look at the increase, but oh wait, thats because it was on fta. oh well yay rugby” lol
Doing away with scrums, lineouts would be a travesty.
Of course it will fail because people like you love the tug of war, attritional, dementia inducing heavy contact rather than what you would call Harlem Globetrotters rugby.
When the young lad picked up the football he ran with it, avoiding contact on purpose, not seeking the nearest opposition and smash into him.
There is a reason NZ All Blacks are the most sought after team to watch - its more entertaining. Paranoia about NZ rugby dominance is nothing new? Ban the haka, stop them wearing black, stop poaching Pacific Islanders - well until we get our own anyway!
Rugby being more popular than league: it’s due in a large part to tradition, especially at schools? How do you account for football being more popular than rugby or league then?
All of these media pundits always miss the obvious whenever they analyse what is ailing or assisting the game.
Rugby always has contentious points for debate when picking apart individual games and finding fault with itself.
All this focus and scrutiny on “speeding up the game”, “high ball in play” etc is all contextual to the fan.
As a tv viewer, if you’re absorbed into a game, regardless if your team is playing or not, more ball in play time and action are all byproducts of the contest.
A good contest subliminally affects your memory in selectively remembering all the good aspects.
A poor contest and your brain has switched off because its a blowout and the result is never in doubt or it’s a real chore to watch and remain engaged throughout.
The URC, Top 14 and English premiership are all competitions that feel like there’s real jeopardy each week.
The dominance of Super rugby by NZ teams was unhealthy from a sustainable interest perspective. You can’t fault those teams or the players, but the lack of competitions won by SA and Australian teams long term was always going to test the faith and patience of die-hard and casual fans from those regions.
SANZAR took their eye off the fans and fans voted with their feet and subscriptions. They were so concerned about expanding their product they forgot the golden rule about broadcasting live sport.
Viewers tune in more when there’s an atmosphere and a true contest. You need to fill stadiums to create one, host unions need to do more to service ticket buyers, and this year proves the other, there’s more interest in Super rugby this year only because more games are competitive with less foregone conclusions.
All these micro statistics bandied about, only interest the bean counters and trainspotters.
That’s not the case at all. You have to work at those things if you want to see results, that’s the predicament we have now, fans getting absorbed into the contest has seen a spate of bad refereeing adjudication come into the game (RWC TMO debacles being the pinnacle recently) and this is now what NZR is trying to arrest.
Yeah, I think you have this problem.
And this here highlights the problem with you’re subjectivity I’d say. A good contest is not one that is defined as being close. You have close games that are really crap to watch if you’re paying attention to those subliminal affects you mention. That’s perfectly fine of course, you might not be able to enjoy the game if you were able to have more subjectivity. Stick with how you find enjoyment.
Don’t think I’m telling you you have to enjoy the All Blacks 100 point thrashing of Italy. That is only something Ian Foster would try and get people to believe and he’s the antithesis of NZ rugby, so rightly ignore him.
Great post Sam
I have always been a big advocate for SA Rugby to leave Super Rugby and SANZAAR and hitch our wagon to the NH.
Now that we are part of the URC & EPRC I am absolutely loving it. What I find special is that we are amongst rugby purists who love the game of rugby and not just winning.
The match experience still sucks at SR games, irrespective of the game being a little quicker.
Rugby has to compete with so much in the modern world, if you’re going to get people to leave their houses and pay to watch a game in winter then the experience has to be worthwhile.
I’m all for speeding up the game. But can we be certain that the slowness of the game contributed to fans walking out? I’m not so sure.
Super rugby largely suffered from most fans only being able to, really, follow the games played in their own time zone. So at least a third of the fan base wasn’t engaged at any point in time.
As a Saffer following SA teams in the URC - I now watch virtually every European game played on the weekend. In SR, I wouldn’t be bothered to follow the games being played on the other side of the world, at weird hours, if my team wasn’t playing. I now follow the whole tournament and not just the games in my time zone.
Second, with New Zealand teams always winning. It’s like formula one. When one team dominates, people lose interest. After COVID, with SA leaving and Australia dipping in form, SR became an even greater one horse race. Thats why I think Japan’s league needs to get in the mix. The international flavor of those teams could make for a great spectacle.
But surely if we believe that shaving seconds off lost time events in rugby is going to draw fans back, we should be shown some figures that supports this idea before we draw any major conclusions. Where are the stats that shows these changes have made that sort of impact? We’ve measured down to the average no. Of seconds per game. Where the measurement of the impact on the fanbase?
Does a rugby “fan” who lost interest because of ball in play time suddenly have a revived interest because we’ve saved or brought back into play a matter of seconds or a few minutes each game? I doubt it. I don’t thinks it’s even a noticeable difference to be impactful.
The 20 min red card idea. Agreed. Let’s give it a go. But I think it’s fairer that the player sent off is substituted and plays no further part in the game as a consequence.
Have you guys had many fans walking out Bull? I know plenty got disinterested with their teams poor performances but in an easier competition we can see that was just a short term problem and how everyone is back.
Here a lot of grumpy people say the game is just not like was here and can’t see themselves returning.
So you only follow live games? Would you say you have an archaic approach to consuming sports content? I just finished enjoying watching last weeks Reds v Crusaders game for example (what did you think of the Rugby Pass survey questions?).
When you got to your F1 race and the winner of pole race being awarded the vicotry, and suggesting Japan, I was thinking SA. One of the causes was that reform taking a lot out of the game and fans right. I feel like you’ve overcome that now and all are much better teams that would bring back that lack of competition (ultimately doesn’t work for that lack of interest thing that are part of our grumps gripes as well).
Doesn’t it have to have an impact, or are all these new fans actually brand new? Agreed no data presented in this article though.
He cites viewership numbers increasing, can’t draw a direct correlation to that but it’s one of the stats you’re asking for. The issue with rugby for Kiwi fans is the inconsistent referring, countless rules and yes, the stop-start nature so these changes do make a difference for us and would argue they will (are?) bring fans back.
Match day experience needs to be the next focus for NZR/AR, Chiefs are doing some cool things but Eden Park/Blues needs to start leading in this space in my opinion. Our stadiums arguably need to be smaller like in the NH to create more atmosphere, create demand pressures etc.
Speeding the game up by eliminating dead time is more of a NZ/Aus concern than for anyone else.
It’s because of Rugby League.
League games are virtually continuous, with easier to understand rules, strong ties to working class history, and the game-day experience for the Auckland based Warriors leaves Super Rugby for dead.
Most fans in NZ who like one usually like both codes (I love them both).
But it is competition for players.
The top first XVs competition in NZ attracts rugby league scouts from every Australian club, throw in the NH interest in super rugby, NPC, as well as the Japanese clubs and retaining players in rugby becomes a massive battleground in New Zealand.
Eliminating dead time improves the game for everyone, but it is more crucial for the product and therefore player retention down here.
Per your last comment, that is already the case. Red carded players are gone for the game but a substitute can come on after 20 min