Not a new rule, but I'd like to see the red card for attacks/punches to the head being properly used.
There have been many times this year where red cards were (IMO) correctly given for punches to the head, but there were also occasions where red cards were not given out for this offence (for example Paul Wood vs Pettybourne; sorry it's the first example that came to mind). This is a 'rule' that should be followed consistently, and at the moment, the rulings on the field aren't consistent.

I'd also like a rule to clear up the fine margin between ball steal and loose carry, because at the moment the rule isn't clear enough to provide any real consistency.

What about if the attacking team scores a try from a play ball from within their own half it would be worth an extra point so not including kick returns or interceptions.

For me the red card for punching should be dependent on the severity of the incident, not just a blanket application. If the players are both going at each other I think a sin bin is perfectly reasonable. If one player is in a vulnerable position (Flower on Hohaia, Radford on Bailey etc) then I'd be happy for a red.
I think there are other issues such as cannonball tackles, spear tackles and the twisting of limbs in tackles that deserve a red far more than a couple of props getting a bit carried away.

As for the ball steal/loose carry, the rule is very clear, it's just incredibly difficult for the ref to see what's happened and so is effectively taking a guess as to what happened, mostly based on how the ball comes out.
The consistency could be helped by 2 refs but other than doing away with the ball steal rule altogether (not a realistic proposition) then there's always going to be a problem with the refs seeing what happens.

I'd far rather the refs concentrate on applying the offside and moving off the mark rules properly and consistently, as I believe they're much easier for the officials to see.

Yeah after coming back and reading what I wrote, you give a fair assessment on both my points. Especially the one for punching.
The only rule I don't understand is the punishment for retaliation. I mean if a big guy is laying into you on a rugby field, what are you supposed to do? Let him hit you without defending yourself?

if you're held up over the try line I'd like to see it being a turn over. rewarding the defending team for doing there job better than the attacker.

I also kind of like the idea that a knock on would be any dropped ball, whether its forward or backwards. it would certainly help ref's get knock ons right for a change.

Yeah I agree on retaliation. It's a bug bear of mine where a fight is started and the ref just sin bins both regardless of what happened. As you say if someone punches you are you supposed to just stand there and ask them to stop?

Well as Jamie Peacock found out this season, if someone sticks the forearm and then the head into your face while you're on the floor, you're not allowed to take a swing at him in retaliation.

Personally, I'd make any contact with the head with either a swinging arm or a closed hand a straight red.

i personally don't mind the state of origin mentality when it comes to fisticuffs

i would allow 2 players to trade blows but the moment any other players got involved in the fracas then the key instigators of a mass brawl would be sent off,imo rl is getting far too tame and soft

rugby league is a full on contact sport between gladiators and some fisticuffs should be tolerated

I think fighting's about as well covered as it can be. I wouldn't like the laws tightened further, neither would I like to see the game descend into anarchy. In today's game, although there is still the occasional flare-up, there is no longer the once-common situation of two teams hell-bent on inflicting some pretty serious thuggery on one another. That'll do for me.
As for changes I would like to see:
abolition of the video ref (top of the heap by a country mile for me)
no tries to be scored from passes that hit the deck

Those who are advocating changes to the rules when the ball hits the floor.

Do you not just think that will make teams more risk averse, and lead to SL becoming a monotonous five drives and a kick battle for field position? IMO we should be encouraging teams who want to play expansive rugby, not discouraging them.

My guess is that it wouldn't discourage expansive play. Knock-ons, with their consequent loss of possession, occur more frequently than do tries scored off bounced passes. And although fear of knocking-on undoubtedly often puts paid to the most speculative of offloads, there are still many (in some games too many) occasions where players are prepared to take a gamble. The argument for tinkering is more a matter of rewarding sound defensive efforts which are sometimes undeservedly undermined by a wayward pass.

2 players to be allowed to trade blows? e.g Burrow v's Mose Masoe or Peacock v's Hohaia?

You can't have that or bigger players will target the smaller one's, Crazy idea

i reckon that rob burrow would relish the challenge of having a go at that soft cock tub of lard,all he would have to do is bob and weave for 20 seconds and masoe would be out on his feet and looking for a substitution

I like that one.

I'm fed up watching high kicks to the corner on the 6th tackle.
Players are often offside and the attacking side can get away with murder when jumping for the ball - there's nothing to lose, whereas the defender cannot afford the slightest mistake.
I'd agree that sometimes skill is involved, but 9 times out of 10 it's a lottery.

How about stopping the attacking side from touching the ball from a kick until it has bounced?

Don't allow attacking teams to kick inside the opposition 20 metre area.
Once substituted a player cannot return to the action
Dismal of players (happy with red or yellow) for constant back chat to the referee
Only allow one defender at the play the ball. I have never understood the need for two other than to help close play down.
Passes must go backwards. Unsure when this rule was changed but I find it quite depressing when full time professionals can't pass properly and consistently.
Highly unlikely that any will be introduced but would personally like to see reduced substitutions

NURSE! He's out of bed again!

I think these are well thought through and reasoned suggestions, I especially like "substituted players cannot return" coupled with "reduced substitution" - that would definitely make for a faster, more open game.

Not a response I expected but it really did make me laugh!

I think there's enough agreement around the game to reduce the number of interchanges, but I think that there's a bit of overkill about big players - I like watching the likes of George Burgess charge into the defence. I have no problem reducing their impact to a degree, but not simply replacing impact players with workhorses. So reduce interchanges, but just by 2.

Getting wrestling reduced can be largely done by of refs calling held earlier and enforcing it better. The number of times you hear the ref call held and yet players do not immediately stop wrestling is ridiculous, and other times refs don't call held when its clear to all that its the defenders keeping the tackle going.

Apart from wrestling the biggest problem with the game as a spectacle is the conservative 6th tackle plays in attack leading to repetitive patterns in games. You either have to incentivise passing movements, which is difficult, or penalise 'defensive' attacking kicks that don't come off to the extent that players are dioscouraged from using them.

One idea would make grounding an opposition kick in-goal should result in a 20m restart to the defence, similar to RU (possibly just for those made within 10m of the line). The reward from grubber kicks is potentially huge, but how many are really a very negative tactic simply aimed at getting a repeat set?

The high kick to the corner poses virtually no risk to the attacking side so long as they cover any possible breaks, and so has become the 'go to' play. A change which could help provide balance here would be to have a 20m restart for any kick in the air caught within the 20m. At least then the average downside for the defending team is improved.

If the effectiveness of these sort of kicks were reduced, perhaps you could offer a carrot to attacking passing moves by allowing an extra tackle if someone is held up over the line on any tackle (apart from the last)?

The hardest thing with rule changes is looking at the unforeseen consequences. I think its generally agreed what we don't want (although I reckon a hell of a lot of pro coaches don't want any rule changes) but a lot harder to predict what might happen if we tinker around too much.

If you change the rule about substitutions and when you go off its permanent in the game teams will either pack the bench with props or they will disappear to be replaced with a host of second row tackling machines

The only thing I'd consider is changing grubber kicks caught in goal to be 20 metre taps, same as high kicks. The rest is fine and just a matter of coaching and tactics.

I think the interchange rules are fine. They allow for impact players to come on and add excitement. They add an extra dimension to the game.

Agree with this. The last thing we need is more workhorse tackling machines.

As mentioned it's on the refs to call held quicker and enforce a held call that's not listened to, alongside severely penalising the twisting of limbs and cannonball tackles etc and techniques that are designed to simply slow the play the ball or hurt the attacker. That, along with enforcing offside properly would help speed up play.

How many teams have one back as a substitute at the moment? Most teams now have a bench consisting of forwards only.
If a player isn't capable of 80 minutes then he shouldn't be playing the game.
The more substitutions available the more forwards and ten minute impact players will be selected in place of potential game changing players

Absolute b0llocks