The Central Governor Theory

Rugby is a physical game. The modern game has seen even more physically imposing athletes face up against one another. The collisions hurt and it takes a physical toll on the players. Yet it seems there are certain players and teams who are able to perform better at crucial stages of the match. They cut out silly errors or find a way to make those tackles.

There is a fitness scientist from SA, Dr Tim Noakes, who has come up with the central governor theory. His hypothesis is that the brain acts as a central governor, limiting our ability to push through the pain barrier in the interests of self-preservation. That limit manifests itself in the feeling of pain.

For those of you familiar with Ironman racing, there was a famous rivalry between Ironman legends Mark Allen and Dave Scott. Dave Scott was the older athlete and he had an iron will, which intimidated his rivals. Mark Allen, who was more like a Zen warrior, learned over time to channel that intimidation into positive energy. There was a point in the race with 6 miles to go to the finish line, where Mark Allen decided to lay everything on the line and attack Dave Scott. He put in a burst of energy and Dave Scott would later say every pace he made he gained 6 inches on Scott. The moment when Dave Scott thought in his mind, this guy's going to beat me, that's when it really started to hurt. Noakes believes that was the central governor kicking in saying don't do anything stupid because you're really going to hurt yourself otherwise.

But you might say there are real physiological limits. If you want to run like an Olympic marathon runner, you would have to average 20km an hour over the 26 miles and do not far off the Roger Bannister mile. The next time you're on a gym treadmill, set it to 20 and see how long you last. You might make a couple of seconds or minutes but then fall in a crumpled heap contemplating you have to maintain that pace for a little over 2 hours. No need for a central governor theory there. Common sense will take over very soon.

However, there are instances of mind winning over matter. Have you ever been in a running race where you're hurting with a few kilometres to go only to find yourself in a sprint battle with 400m to go? Somehow Bevan Docherty pulled in Kris Gemmel to do just that in a World Cup race: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo-nbnw8zSI Two women in the Ironman probably had their central governor ringing alarms in their heads when this happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTn1v5TGK_w Two women bonking and you'd expect a different type of video!

The problem is that often we don't prepare for these events in training. We only experience them in the moment on race day or, in rugby, match day. Too often we don't prepare for the why and so we don't know how to execute the how. There might be teams who might be wider around the waist than others or players who appear to be more resilient or indefatigable than others but how many prepare in training to push beyond their limits? Often training is thought of a way to replicate what you do on match day. But what happens when things don't go to plan or you are forced to deviate from your training? When your mind tells you to exert more energy than what you've trained to do, the brain reacts by reducing the level of muscle activation in order to force you to slow down.

It's not to say the elite teams don't feel pain but they are able to cope better with it. Training can help to push through these physical barriers but even more important is preparing yourself mentally. It's not a case of blocking out the pain or thinking that you're in top physical shape and pain won't be an issue. It's about accepting that pain is inevitable and being ready for it and not letting it affect your performance. When it comes to that crucial last quarter, how prepared do you think your team is to fight through that pain? Of course there are other external and internal factors - tactics, how well the opposition play, injuries - but when the chips are down and you need that lift to get you back in the game, how much is your mind preventing you from reaching for that little bit extra?

That`s all a bit technical for me but certainly players sometimes have to be restrained
for there own good.Concussion concerns are a case in point in the modern game players
no longer have to play on grievously injured.
In the days when there were no substitutes if you could stand had one arm or leg you
played on.
Many teams played injured players as passengers and won,the injured player even
making vital scores.
Just as many did the same and lost today medical care better understands players
needs.With players as a rule being heavier and bulkier even tackles take there toll
hit a player enough.Early,late,or when he has the ball eventually he will cry enough
which where the squad comes in.

I can only speak of personal experience.

When I did my national service I wasn't the fittest person when I enlisted, in fact my first 2.4 km run with (staaldak webbing en geweer) steel helmet, webbing and rifle, I couldn't complete the course in the required 12 minutes.

Running it in PT shorts was another thing altogether, after 8 weeks of basic training I could literally run the whole day.

We would start or morning with a three km run to shoot at targets 10m away the size of a saucer, then inevitably get a lukof ( company drill but a nasty one) all the way back.

After breakfast we would go to the shooting rabge 7 km away, running obviously, then after a few hours there get another Lukof on the way back, then off to distance measure (with your thumb) and another 10 km run.

By night time you would have done 30 km's easy and then do a nightmarch.

Considering the fact that I am a prop I ran a 2.4 kitted out in 9 min 25 seconds by the end of basic training.

After my national service I ran a number of half marathons and once tried to push myself as fast as I could go.

I could keep to 3min 30 per km for 7 kms and then I could go no more.

It taught me that your mind is the most powerful thing you have, yet when you have no choice (in the army) you tend not to give up, whereas when it isn't life or death, and simply for sheer fun, it is much easier to give up.

So I guess it all depends on how important a goal is to you, if it is really important your mind can take so much more.

Sorry Kia, perhaps not entirely on topic.

In terms of Rugby I think a lot of that comes down to good old test match rugby. Training prepares you physically, mentally, and tactically for the battle. It offers no promises of the outcome.

Test match experience puts you in 'situations' that often repeat, and its through experience that a player might on this occasion try the obvious, on that occasion try something else, and on another do something else.

The luxury of being put in multiple instances of a potentially match winning situation can't be underestimated, and that will be why a coach will more likely go with experience over a rising star.

Look at Conrad Smith. His position at Centre must be one of the most difficult to get right in terms of the decision making on attack and defence. he not only has to do his own thing, he needs to sum up whats best for those around him, time after time after time.

The luxury of coming up against the AAC's, O'Driscolls, JDV's etc time after time means he already has knowledge of whats likely to happen given the circumstances, and he will draw primarily from his vast experience first.

Fekitoa on the other hand will rely on the element of surprise, the fact that others don't know what hes going to do.

Two players, similar in speed, defensive and attacking abilities, receiving the same training and preparation, but both operating on completely different mindsets and approaches to the same role.

...Not sure if thats on topic either to be honest...

 Classic stuff guys. Reading between the lines, I don't know what you're wittering on about!

But your analogies or anecdotes are relevant. When you go beyond your perceived physical limits, the empowering realization comes that you are capable of much more than you think. So the next time a similar situation arises and you are able to draw on previous experiences of how you overcame pain, you are better prepared to dealing with that specific case of adversity.

With the modern era, I think teams are more or less even in the physical stakes. What still separates them, in my view, is their mental strength. You have to strike a healthy balance between physical and mental preparation but I would argue the latter is far more important than many are prepared to accept. Winning games often comes down to small margins. Being able to dig deeper when it counts invariably doesn't come down to physical conditioning as both sides are hurting. It comes down to which side believes they can dig that little deeper.

It is good reading Kia. When I did play rugby I got to British Army standard, I never felt the pain on the field, not to say it was not there after the match it was in buckets. It was also sense that limited what you would do on the field to prevent injury. I was also a distance runner with 10 marathon's under my belt, I always hit the wall but I so easily recall the last 400 meters (especially running into the Berlin stadium) where I just sprinted around. Had many march and shoots and cross countries under my belt to think about and could run through the barrier without giving up (like the wall). So it is guts, sheer determination and a high pain threshold which help. In a professional even more I'd argue, but rugby is a game where you played with a broken finger or hand or even worse in certain circumstances especially in the days of no subs.

Always recall an experiences prop who was part gypsy telling me as a lad,Taken Phone Speech "It may hurt but never let them hear you squeal" words that still echo in my ears to this day.

Nice anecdote rainbow. It's always comforting to have experienced a moment where you were at a low thinking there is no way forward and to get through that.

When I say pain it doesn't have to be playing through like Buck Shelford pain. Fatigue running back like Read against kearney to make the conversion more difficult can be a form of pain but now knowing that that action ended up proving the difference will no doubt inspire him in future situations to deal with that pain.

Lucozade... the awesome kind of energy.... when laced with.............................. well, we won't go there, it's called cheating probably.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: Classic stuff guys. Reading between the lines, I don't know what you're wittering on about!

But your analogies or anecdotes are relevant. When you go beyond your perceived physical limits, the empowering realization comes that you are capable of much more than you think. So the next time a similar situation arises and you are able to draw on previous experiences of how you overcame pain, you are better prepared to dealing with that specific case of adversity.

With the modern era, I think teams are more or less even in the physical stakes. What still separates them, in my view, is their mental strength. You have to strike a healthy balance between physical and mental preparation but I would argue the latter is far more important than many are prepared to accept. Winning games often comes down to small margins. Being able to dig deeper when it counts invariably doesn't come down to physical conditioning as both sides are hurting. It comes down to which side believes they can dig that little deeper.

Thats true, though theres probably the measure of proportion to consider. The marathon/ triathlon scenario lends itself more directly to digging deep, toughing it more than the other guy, who's basically doing the same thing. In rugby theres the skill factor, theres an X factor that can contribute completely independently of physical perseverance and mental toughness. A Wilko dropped goal, a Lomu storming run, a Carlos through the legs pass, a SBW offload so subtle you could pin a tail on it etc etc...rugby's not only about drawing from deep reserves, its about a range of qualities across a wide spectrum, and thats part of its beauty. Amongst the brute force of the scrum theres the tip toe down the sideline, amongst the cramped calves at the 84th minute theres the pinpoint sideline conversion etc etc.

I certainly don't disagree with that Tman. There is that same skill factor actually in ironman and running that you speak of in rugby and I agree that these are important factors to consider. It's not just about being the mentally toughest. But if you want consistency you can't always rely on skill to get you through. You need something else like the Ireland comeback or the Ellis Park comeback taking examples from NZ last year. There was definitely skill there but also a combination of ticker and mental belief.

I remember Chris laidlaw talking about the 3 rd Test v Sa 1965.
16-0 up at half time lost 19-16.
People said complancecy lost the game,BUT Chris said every thing
AB`s tried first half came off,nothing they tried second half did.
Compare it to Ireland match 2013 every thing AB`s tried didn't
work.BUT they persisted Ireland tired then the same things worked
as Saint Vic said FITNESS always tells.

Yes but Alan what is fitness? Sure there's a big physiological component that's essential. But was Richie McCaw 'fit' in the 2011 RWC final? What enabled him to stay out on the field for the whole game with a crook foot. Fitness was part of it but certainly not all of it.