the proposed rule changes for 2025; highlights.

1, Captains challenge (in favour)
2, no try/ try system for video referee to be scrapped, in favour of joint decision from ref and video ref. (in favour)
3, adjusted tackle height to below armpit to be scrapped and stay as it is now. (in favour)below arm pit
4, double movement rule change, not clarified yet

2 & 3 for me and real game changers for me and if 3 is implements think i would be done with RL and 2, has been disaster awful rule and gets decisions wrong so often. puts people off the game.

ROBERT HICKS, the RFL’s director of operations and legal, has revealed that the Laws Committee will meet this Wednesday and is likely to make some significant changes to the way the game is officiated from next season onwards.

The main change that it is likely to support is the introduction of the Captain’s Challenge to Super League matches.

The Captain’s Challenge was a rule introduced by the NRL for the 2020 season. In doing so, the rule was designed to take some pressure away from referees and onto captains of a team if they strongly disagreed with a decision.

The rule was incorporated into the World Cup played in England in 2022 but has never been introduced into Super League.

“We have two key criteria when we consider law changes – safety and entertainment value,” Hicks told League Express.

“The Captain’s Challenge brings drama to the game and some supporters may be surprised to learn that the referees themselves would support its introduction, because they want decisions on the field to be the right ones.”

The Committee is expected to support its introduction this Wednesday, with the decision due to be rubber-stamped by the RFL directors.

It is also expected to discuss whether the referee’s live call in a try-scoring situation will remain when the decision goes to the video referee, with the likelihood that instead of giving his opinion on whether a try has been scored, the decision is left to both the referee and video referee working in tandem.

Other rules to be considered include the interpretation of offside following a kick downfield and the Committee will debate whether to introduce the NRL rule about short kick-offs and restarts, whereby a play-the-ball instead of a penalty is awarded for short kick-offs that don’t travel ten metres.

There will also be a discussion around tackle height and whether the improvements in technique shown in most matches this season mean that any more adjustments will be unnecessary.

We are supposed to be lowering the tackle height next year, but we are hoping we don’t have to do it,” admitted Hicks.

“We will also look at ways to discourage players from lying down when they are subject to foul play, with stricter enforcement of the green card policy.

“And we are also going to consider the removal of the double movement rule, either by totally changing it or changing the sanction.

“And we are considering whether to modify the rule about a player catching a ball that has been kicked. A penalty is given if such a player is tackled in the air, but the debate is about whether a player should be allowed to be tackled in the air if he’s an attacking player.”

We are looking at a longer-term view of the game as part of the reimagining of the sport.”

I think most of us would rather rewind the clock 20 years regarding the rules of the game and have referees that rather than pandering to certain teams and players just enforce the rules. I bet just about all of the retired pros from yesteryear can’t believe the way that players act and talk to referees nowadays. It’s no surprise when you hear so many say they are not interested in watching the game any more. Rather than telling certain players when they have committed an offence without punishing them maybe the refs should penalise them and then tell them why. Current ref speak includes “quicker next time” (you’re f**#in about in the tackle but I’m not gonna penalise you)), “you’re pushing forwards, go back, (you’ve moved off the mark but I’m not penalising the offence) , and “lower next time” (it was a high tackle but I’m just gonna ignore this one ). The last one applies especially in the case of a high tackle on Harry Newman. The refs are a set of jokers along with the governing body. They can change whatever rules they want but they won’t be getting a dime of my money next season.

The captain's challenge is an interesting one. What it generally shows is that players often don't know what has happened to make a ball come loose, or they do but are hoping the video will show something else happened. I was really introduced to bring a bit of theatre, but most of the time its fairly pointless and just gives the players a breather.

I'm not sure on the VR thing - the ref making a call seems to work well in the NRL. Shouldn't SL look into making it work better? Regardless I think the VR should have a strict time limit. If they can't clearly see something to change a decision within 30 seconds then just live with it.

Armpit rule was an unworkable knee-jerk to concussion issues.

Changing/removing the double movement rules I don't understand. What's wrong with the rule as it stands?

I like the captains challenge and it works ok in the NRL.
Trouble with the refs we have, the game is likely to go on until Midnight the number of times they get it wrong here.

I would rather see rules around the wrestle and the third and fourth players dropping onto a tackle. The flop seems to have disappeared completely.

I also remember Rob Burrow getting penalised (Ganson I think) for putting his hands up at a slow play the ball. What he did was nothing compared to nowadays and players get away with murder.

Has the 10 metres for dissent also been done away with.

Oh dear...

Well speaking rationally, they are sensible enough changes but my main concern would be speeding up and tidying up the play the ball. Everything else is pretty unimportant from a viewing standpoint. If we can avoid further changes to the high tackle rules so much the better.

to sort out the ruck needs good referees, so that's out.

for me offside from kicks should only be if you interfere with play. too many trys are ruled out by an attacker being 8 yards away but not interfering with play

As you consider yourself a rational speaker I would imagine you also consider yourself to be a rational thinker ? What do you think the RFL’s rationale is behind ordering officials to ignore certain types of cheating/ rule breaking when checking tries for possible offences ? You will know the Rugby Union officials in the video booth check for any offence in the build up to a try, what was the reasoning behind the RFL basically saying even an obvious forward pass should be ignored when reviewing a try that is “sent upstairs” ? What are they so scared of to allow the game to become a laughing stock ?

Try/no try needs to change, doesn't it? It's making the game look even more amateurish than it is.

I bet HKR fans aren't complaining about the current video ref rules.

I know nothing about rugby union and care even less.

If you think the minutiae of different ways referees have of interpreting the rules makes the sport a 'laughing stock' then you're obviously more sensitive and easily upset than the average person.

Absolute joke , the Ref was in no position to rule on that , it was a 90% No try

You’re not thinking rationally Mr rational thinker. You’re letting emotion cloud your judgement. I asked you what you thought about officials being ordered to ignore infringements, not their interpretation of events. I’ll ask you the question again, what do you think about our governing body telling officials to ignore obvious infringements and why would they do that? Rational answers only please.

Have obscure RFL refereeing protocols really sent you over the edge?

Oh dear.
I’ll leave this one here if you can’t answer such a simple question. I would also advise a Collins English Dictionary for your next birthday.
Obscure definition; not discovered or known about, uncertain.
Not clearly expressed or easily understood.

The RFL’s ruling that forward passes cannot be penalised by the video ref is the exact opposite of obscure.i’d be flabbergasted if anyone else on here apart from you didn’t know about it or understand it.
D minus and a fail for you.

Return the video ref decision to benefit of doubt to the attack if unclear. Limit replays to a minute.

Stop allowing players to lay in the way of the play the ball, as it enables players to slow down the dummy half getting the ball away.

Limit goal kickers to a minute from the try being awarded to take the conversion.

Any injury stopping the match needs to result in a substitution, HIA or green card whether the match is stopped by a doctor or the referee.

Stop allowing the video referee to judge on foul play.

Stop allowing referees to wave their arms telling players to get up rather than penalising the defending team for slowing the ruck down. It seems like the easy option for referees. Perhaps make the referees penalise the attacking player for cheating given how often referees wave their arms and blame the attacking player rather than the defending player.

It would be nice when tries are scored if referees could focus on not only whether a try has been scored but whether foul play has been committed too. All foul play seems to be forgotten when a try is scored and yellow cards / penalty tries / 8 point tries ignored.

Oh God this was all about video referees and forward passes

. Absolute trivia compared to the real issues facing the game.
If this stuff triggers you so much then I worry what genuine refereeing errors do. Actually, I can probably imagine.

Is the situation regarding rhe various proposals for next season settled?