The Stockdale Paradox, a theory drawn from the life of vice-admiral James Stockdale, the most senior US military official incarcerated in the notorious prisoner of war camp, Hanoi Hilton, during the Vietnam War is indeed intriguing. James Stockdale’s plane was brought down by enemy ammunition in 1965, and he was captured and consistently tortured until his release in 1973.
In the face of uncertainty about his future, his resolve to survive and resist never wavered. He went as far as harming himself to avoid being forced to star in the enemy’s propaganda film. His hard grit was unquestionable.
When asked about the individuals who didn’t survive the horrific POW camp, his reply was rather candid. He said, “The optimists. They would hope to be out by Christmas and when it passed, hope would be deferred to Easter, and so it continued.”
The perch of the Stockdale Paradox is that one must never mix the belief of eventual victory, which one must never let go, with the ruthless truths of their existing circumstance.
Recent international rugby events seem to be operating within their own Stockdale Paradox. While rugby is often touted as the best spectator sport in the world, especially when the ball is in play, it’s the game’s laws, as imposed by the ruling body, that appear to restrict the duration of playable time.
All rugby games at any level endure extended periods of inaction while play is paused. The increasing gaps in play, often filled by blasting music at stadiums, has become a disturbing norm. Naturally, one would expect World Rugby to identify this problem and adjust the rules accordingly aiming to reduce stops and provide more playtime.
Although, if we were to understand the reality through Stockdale’s lens, we must acknowledge the lack of sound reasoning on the part of rugby’s law-makers.
Take for instance, the first Test between the Springboks and Ireland which saw a dismal ball in play (BIP) time of merely 30 minutes and 23 seconds. This implies that roughly 49 minutes and 37 seconds of the game had, plainly speaking, nothing happening.
Delving further into the analysis, it becomes clear that throughout the entire 80-minute duration of the game, the Springboks made offensive moves for only about 15.36 minutes while the Irish team attacked for about 14.47 minutes. This implies that for more than two-thirds of the game, specifically 65 minutes and 13 seconds, there was a lack of offensive play by the Irish team.
Strange as it may seem, despite this being a prevalent occurrence in top-level professional matches, with similar Ball in Play (BIP) times observed in the Pretoria Test, it doesn’t seem to trigger any alarm bells. The core of this issue lies within the current scrum laws, which have enabled a series of game-changing penalties. Consequently, these penalties have impelled the scrum into an unparalleled level of importance, a position it was never intended to hold.
Modern scrum regulations have even influenced coaches to opt for forward-heavy benches for the sole purpose of gaining more penalties from the scrum. Combined with exhaustive reviews by the TMO, slow formation of lineouts and lengthy goal shots, it’s clear that BIP times have not only been drastically cut but the majority of attacking backline play has also been discarded.
The scrum needs to be repositioned to its initial purpose as a contest to resume play and provide an optimum platform for backline attacks. In the decades of the 80s and 90s, scrum violations were typically dealt with free kicks instead of penalties. However, since then, we have transformed the scrum from an attacking tool to a medium to earn a penalty.
While numerous top players and coaches are calling for reform, many scrums still require over two minutes to complete. This is mainly due to the current generation of forwards not binding early, as slowing down the formation allows them to recover their breath. This tactic, coupled with a bench biased towards forwards, means that the current forwards are playing only half of the game, with the ball actually in play for barely 15 minutes. This development has significantly reduced the requirement for aerobic fitness in modern forward packs.
Such strategic changes have reshaped the game far from its original intent. Reduced aerobic fitness requirements mean that more mass can be carried, leading to greater strength but also more risk in collisions. Brain injury experts have pointed out that having less muscular forwards and increasing their aerobic workload could decrease the power in collisions, which could ultimately lead to fewer instances of brain trauma.
The more one requires aerobic fitness, the less muscle mass they can sustain, which in turn, decreases their power in a collision scenario. This doesn’t just apply to Ball in Play (BIP) durations that could improve with adjustments to the scrum and substitute rules. On the contrary, the safety of the players seems to be continually overlooked.
World Rugby has indicated that a series of working groups are expected to offer solutions to these critical matters and others in November, however, I hold little faith in them enacting the essential modifications for increased BIP periods. The words of the revered Vice-Admiral Stockdale resonate in my mind. I am convinced that needed changes will eventually be made within our sport but have little hope for any substantial change this coming November.
Echoing Stockdale’s sentiments, “We will not be done by Christmas: brace yourself.”