Following on from comments in another thread, I wonder when/why they stopped having them because IIRC when we first went to summer rugby I'm sure it was decided to have them 'when necessary' in games. did they stop because it's just got a bit cooler and they've forgotten that it is allowed?

To be fair players get a drink after a try...

I understand that some games there are not many tries, but other games they can get a drink every 5/10 minutes

i think they should allow a drinks break if there hasn't been a try-some matches its can be half an hour before a try. Players push themselves enough without having to play in hot weather and dehydrate.

I think what they decided to do was to change the rules on 'water' carriers, so that in most circumstances, there was no danger of a player who needed fluid not being able to get it.

I wouldn't rule out ever having a match with formal drinks breaks again, as if there was some extreme weather they might do it, but I'd assume the water carrier arrangements must be working well, or else we'd hear the coaches up in arms (and rightly) if they felt the rules were such that they couldn't keep their players hydrated enough.

I'm no expert, but on the occasion I recall a formal break I recall it looked more like a cooldown break, with players pouring water over themselves to reduce temperature, than "drinks".

It isn't a good idea to down a large amount of fluid in one go during the game anyway; it works much better to have just a mouthful or so but do it frequently.

Steve Ganson gave a water break during the last world cup, and I saw him give one in a match at the Stoop. I was expecting to see them on Sunday, particularly during the Stains Wigan game when the players needed top cool off oin more ways than one.

I guess I expected it all weekend, with it being the hottest weekend of the year by some way. It might be something that gets discussed by the rfl for future games for the rest of the season, or it may not.

I saw the referee of some Wendyball game have drinks break in the proceedings. Might have been York v Luton or the Hudders/Blades game. Either way fair play to the ref.

it definitely happened in the hudds game.

With regard to the dehydration comments made by Mick Potter:

Obviously, every person all the time they are taking exercise is dehydrating and in those conditions players would sweat a bucketload during the course of a match, but that would hardly come as a surprise to any professional associated with the clubs. I presume nobody has suggested they didn't realise it would be hot and sunny.

I have made the point already that to keep hydrated players have to drink little, and often. It isn't as if a player would, or should, take a litre of water on board in a drinks break. The issue being raised by Potter is one of hydration, and that's an 80 minute issue. And I said that I was happy to rely on the judgment of the professionals as to water carriers etc and that presumably the clubs were happy with the arrangements otherwise there'd have been complaints. Have there been complaints? None that I know of.

If Potter is now saying, after the event, that he wasn't happy with the hydration then I'd ask why we didn't send more water carriers on more often. He also said that Leeds players were dropping down and waiting for water to come. Did they? I didn't notice it.

In our game against Leeds there were 11 tries, so that's on average one stoppage every 7 minutes; plus further breaks in play; plus half time; plus substitutions; that is not taking into account water carriers during live play (as Potter is saying Leeds were doing).

I have no issue at all with drinks breaks or any other measure if it is in the interests of the players but would query why no hydration issue had been raised, by anybody from any club, either before during or after the weekend, until this one, if it was seen as an issue?

As I said in the Purtell thread Potter is not medically qualified so I can't see how he can say dehydration was linked to or had any influence at all on Purtell's heart problem. He can have an opinion but is it backed up by evidence?

As for drinks breaks I thought there were enough breaks in the game due to tries for everyone to get a drink. Players also would've been fully hydrated beforehand and again at half time. In another game with fewer stoppages I'd say there was more of a case for drinks breaks.

I think dehydration probably will have been a factor but if it was, then it was not one that a drinks break would have eliminated.

Mick Potter is saying the Leeds players went down and waited for the fluids to come to them. If thats the case it strikes me they were a bit smarter, savvy, street wise call it what you will, than we were. Whose fault is that?

First off may I wish Adrian a speedy recovery.

I'm in favour of a more regimented break in games like at the weekend, get them in the shade if pos give em 5 mins to get proper fluids down them and also give the medical staff the chance to spot any signs.

leeds did seem to be dropping like flies in that second half, but i didnt think it was for the sole purpose of a drink. I know restriction came in on the water carriers but that was due to some teams sometimes deploying them as a 14th man with them never off the pitch. Without trying to pre-judge, it seems purtells illness was waiting to happen, he had previous problems and had felt it for a couple of weeks prior which seems to explain that sundays game conditions MAY have accenuated his illness rather than caused it.

As the poster above as said though, maybe a bit of common sense needs to be applied where the referee can have a moment say where he can consult captains etc if he feels a break would be in order though it would have to scrutinised properly as wouldnt want a situation where a team could ask for or agree to a break at a key point or if they were under pressure in the match

I like to see a set break after 20mins rather than the ref descretion also to stop water carriers on every 2 mins. It might stop people getting me up out of my seat every 5 minutes to go for a pi$$.

Must say I didn't notice Leeds players constantly dropping down till a water carrier came but taking your word for it, why didn't we take advantage of the extra man or men? That must leave gaps. Also, I have tried to find the water carrier rules but can't - anyone able to provide a link?

Personally I wouldn't mind water carriers on the pitch, but IIRC the problem was/is with people coaching, disguised as water carriers or trainers or whatever. E.g. you suddenly see some guy in the middle of the opponents' line, shouting instructions and organising, instead of attending to any given player. Don't think a water carrier on the field would bother most people - if that's what it really was.


I don't think in general dehydration presents a real or substantial risk of heart attacks or blood clots in otherwise healthy rugby players. Otherwise we wouldn't have played millions of man-years of rugby league without it regularly (or ever) happening.

OTOH there will always be isolated cases of players suffering unfortunate but unpredictable illness. With hindsight, if the experts test and determine that's what it was, seems to me an individual health issue and risk for that unfortunate player, but not across the sport.

To put it another way, I love my rugby league with a passion, but if it was the case that players were all right on the edge of their physical limits to the extent that a drinks break might be all that's between them and heart attacks, I'd rather we abandoned the sport. That would be way too dangerous. But I don't believe that's the case.

I do wonder how much hydration is an issue, though. Before Potter's comments I didn't believe it was, because in recent times I haven't read of any other complaint from any player or coach. I'd assume in a major sport like ours the RFL would have been way ahead of us, what with all the sports science and medicine at their disposal, and that something acceptable to all the clubs and coaches, with player welfare in mind, would already have been in place. Potter's comments seem to cast considerable doubt on that.

Would be an interesting feature for Boots'n'all to do. I'll suggest it to them.

The problem with the set break is that it encourages players to take on larger amounts of water than is desirable; as FA correctly pointed out, little and often is the recommended way.

The problem with water carriers in the past was never with dispensing water but coaching whilst pretending to be a water carrier, often without even any water (Gary Mercer, you know I mean you!) it is difficult though, and yet another decision thrown at the poor old ref, but I can't see any other answer.

One symptom is a loss in blood pressure. It's entirely believable that it can lead to a heart attack especially if there was some sort of problem already present. None of this we know until all the tests have been done etc. (and if details are made public). Other things include kidney failure and believe it or not cramp can kill if the muscle affected is your heart.

What we're looking at here isn't just a young man's career but his life was actually in danger. It's a welfare issue and to me it makes sense that if it's that hot the ref calls a halt to play regularly so that fluid can be taken on.

Once a player feels thirsty it's too late as they are already de-hydrated - they should be drinking regularly. If you're focussed on the game though it's not the first thing you'd think about though. Believe it or not I have come across otherwise intelligent blokes who at work refuse to drink so that they don't sweat. It's extremely dangerous.

At the play off final on Saturday the ref called a halt three times in each half and despite it pushing 40 degrees at pitchside and going to penalties I can only remember Peter Clarke going down with cramp.


It's common sense.

It makes sense to give refs the discretion to call for ad hoc drinks breaks, especially if its a low scoring game with few natural stoppages. Pre-scheduled drinks breaks might have the entirely wrong effect, players not bothering to take on water when they should because they know there will be a drinks break in 10 mins.