NRL is an 80-minute game. Or is it?

You often hear a coach lament that their team has not put in an 80-minute performance or that you must play for the full 80 minutes. We know that there is a major focus from the administrators to speed the game up, have more points scored and provide maximum entertainment. They study data on ‘ball in play’ times and tweak the rules to increase these metrics.

In the first 4 rounds, there have been 263 tries scored, 68,69,55 and 71 respectively. That is an average of 8.21 tries per match. Let’s call it 8 for the purpose of the exercise. The most tries in a match has been 12, which has happened on 3 occasions, and the least is 4, which has also happened on 3 occasions. Now, this is my point.

The NRL rule under ‘Goal kicking time limit’ says the following: ‘The referee will call time off at 1minute 20 seconds following the scoring of a try’. So, the clock runs for 80 seconds after a try is scored. Very rarely is the conversion attempt taken before the referee calls time out. Maybe if it is in front of the posts or at the end of the game, but rarely. In a game where twelve tries are scored, that is a staggering 16 minutes lost. In a game of 4 tries, 5.3 minutes, and in an ‘average’ game where eight tries are scored, 10.7 minutes are lost. Therefore, some games have 64 minutes of action, an average game has 69.5 minutes, and a 4-try game just under 75 minutes.

There is a large chunk of time where the fans are watching the players having a drink, the kicking tee is coming out, the runner is delivering instructions and the kicker is lining up the kick and going through their routine, which can be a long and annoying process to watch. In professional Basketball, the clock stops when free throws are being taken. Why? Because it would eat heavily into the game time and drastically reduce the amount of scoring. A goal kick is the equivalent of free throws in Basketball.

I think most supporters would be shocked by these numbers. What is the rationale for the current process? I find the explanation extremely baffling. ‘Time off is to manage the flow of the game, specifically allowing time for the conversion attempt to be set up without the clock stopping immediately, thereby INCREASING the amount of actual play’.

Readers, can you help me out here. Surely it has the exact opposite result. Preventing excessive stoppages: If the clock stopped immediately, it would add several minutes of non-playing time. By waiting, the NRL ensure the ‘dead time’ between a try and kick off is minimised. Readers, HELP, what am I missing here? The amount of ‘dead time’ is exactly the same, but the clock would not be running.

If the clock was stopped, everything on the ground would still happen at the same speed. The same timeframes could stay in place and the kick-off would happen at the same time. What you would be doing is adding 10 minutes of playing time to a game. All you need to do is call ‘time off’ when a try is scored. This is not an earth-shattering, controversial rule change, only common sense.

Here is the case for the current system (and a prosecution to follow).

Broadcast arrangements: The NRL likes to have a neat 2-hour timeframe for the broadcasters to complete their telecast. This change would jeopardise that arrangement.

Player welfare: on average, 10 minutes more play would mean more injuries, more concussions, and more player fatigue, not to mention the referee potentially making more mistakes. It would be like playing ‘golden point’ every week. That would be too much.

It is still more action-packed than the ‘game they play in heaven’, the cross-country ballet (AFL) and, of course, that great cure for Insomnia, ‘the world game’. To quote Rex Mossop again, “if that game ever takes over from Rugby League, you can F#@$ me in Pitt St”.

No one seems to notice or care too much.

The case for the Prosecution:

Rugby League is supposed to be an 80-minute game, not a sixty-five or 70-minute game.

More action, actual play, not watching blokes having a drink. Value for money.

Most importantly, the game could be adjudicated differently. The game would naturally open up more, fatigue would be greater, and they could reduce the number of pedantic ‘six again’ calls that we must endure in the interests of speeding up the play.

What do you think? What am I missing? Have I got it horribly wrong? Let me know your thoughts.

Have a great Easter break and enjoy the footy.

To read more by Mark Shannon click here.

To read our library of rugby league stories click HERE.

To return to our Footy Almanac home page click HERE.

To see the full 2026 season draw for the NRL click HERE.

To see the full 2026 season draw for the NRLW click HERE.

 To see the details for State of Origin in 2026 click HERE.

Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.

Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?

And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help things keep ticking over please consider making your own contribution.

Become an Almanac (annual) member – CLICK HERE.