The NRL and SDL are completely reliant upon broadcasting, what worries me more is the insistence by the RFL that the Championships can still somehow benifit from TV covrage, when its plain to anybody outside Red Hall that 1 , it doesn't 2 , it never will 3 , RL at that level needs to take a different course

It shows how short sighted and lacking in genuine intelligence they are

Should be able to "DO" away with the 4 subs then, and get back to the starting 13. That should save them a fortune in wages.

on the broadcasts I have seen from Aus on Sky Sports there are advertising breaks anyway after a try is scored. The commentator usually mumbles on a bit about welcoming fans from the UK, then as they kick off they go back into full commentary mode.

Is true, NFL has TV Timeouts, there is limits on how many can be called and when though. The NFL TV deals for the next 9 years totals 28 billion. I can see why they allow it!

Why not have the ad break, but the game carries on as normal (a bit like sky plus), then everyones a winner, apart from the armchair viewer (although it even gives them time to grab another can)

Some people will moan at nothing.

I bet the TV companies could implement a 30 second commercial break (one ad) between the try and the conversion without anyone really noticing. On an average game, that would amount to, say six or seven commercial breaks during natural 'downtime'.

I would much rather have that than some daft graphic telling me who's scored the try, coupled with increased subscription fees.

I don't think anyone would be particularly bothered if there was a quick ad break after a try is scored, a bit like in between overs in cricket, as long as none of the actual game is missed and the game itself isn't delayed for the tv. I think the problem is if the game is affected just do TV can have an extra ad break. As mentioned it affects the flow and momentum of the game. I'd rather half-time be lengthened if it was necessary but even that has an affect upon the game, length of time to get breath back, length of time physios can work on players etc.
The TV companies involved in RL seem to do pretty well out of RL and make a profit from it so I don't see why this is necessary to be honest. It's where the games administrators in Oz need to grow a pair for a change and say no. There's plenty of competition for RL broadcasts in Oz anyway.

They already do and have for years. Dead easy to spot in the old days cos Rabs and Peter Sterling would start chatting about some bo11ocks. I think they're more aware that other countries get the full feed now.

Enjoy your ads btw, better than this analysis of the game nonsense they're trying to foist on us. Of that there is no doubt at all.

There aren't on the games live on Sky here. There is when it's live on Channel 9.

They tried it before in the 80's in the NRL as I remember - 4x 20 minute quarters. I think it was a midweek cup competition they had back then.
Old idea.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amco_Cup Found it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amco_Cup Found it.

No. BUT what they do have is an automatic timeout/add-break when there are 2 minutes left in each half. This means the TV companies get their adds but that their is no need to cut away from the action in the closing stages.

One NFL idea I do like, that would help both rugby and wendyball is the "ball out of play, stop the clock" even if is accompanied with a change to "30 minutes PLAYING time" rather than the 40 minutes between whistles we have.

Well, one learns something new every day. Thanks to that link above, I now realise I attended the very last fixture of that competition in 1989.

A Pom was awarded MoM in that final as well despite being on the losing side.

There's more adverts during an NFL game than there is action!

Also, the NBA (and I think also the NHL) have something called an officials timeout. I think these are probably the timeouts that the OP was referring to. I'm not sure whether the ref actually calls the timeout at an appropriate point in the game, or whether they receive instruction from the broadcaster to do so, but they are used as additional breaks in the game so that adverts can be shown.

The breaks themselves are way more annoying for the at-home viewer because usually at the game there is some type of 'entertainment' for the fans during each break. They are also useful for beer/toilet breaks

Did you drink that much beer during the 80's?

CBS, Fox, NBC and ESPN have a certain amount of TV timeouts per game in the NFL, 2 years ago ESPN ran out of them and sent someone down to the sideline to ask the coaches if they would call timeouts (the game was one sided) so they could fit in some more adverts.

Put an ad on a conversion like they do in Aus if you want but no to breaking up the game. Football doesn't need to go into quarters so there's no real reasoning why our game should. As has been mentioned it can introduce artificial changes to the flow of the game. That said could that be something our game would benefit from? It might make things even closer than they already are but given that a team can monopolise possession for ten minutes easily during the course of the game that could mean a team defending virtually for an entire quarter.

Nah, don't like the idea.

Moan moan moan moan moan.

If it gets RL over $1 billion for the TV rights, who cares.

The time wasting going on now es me off more, when the ball is out of play, time off, simple isn't it?

We'd end up with a genuine 80 min game.

We do. Your comment suggests that the NRL couldn't secure that sort of deal without the advertising which may not be the case. The Premiership seems to manage very well and that's exported successfully to countries that are slaves to advertising with sports i.e. the Yanks.

Warrington vs. Rabbitohs was played in 4 quarters and it was actually alright. That wasn't a TV game so I assume they do it due to the heat or maybe just to allow tactical subs.

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.