I have an idea for a rule change, something that I think would help keep the game flowing and reduce frustration caused by the number of penalties.

What if, offsides, markers not square, holding down, back chatting to the ref and any other 'minor' offences were punishable simply with a 'back to one' for the attacking team.

instead of the ref blowing the whistle, stopping the game and awarding the penalty. he could blow the whistle three times and give the back to one signal. play could continue with a fresh set of six.

if the penalty is given while the ball is in play then that would become the zero tackle, if the penalty was given during the tackle then the next tackle would be the 1st.

this would have a number of advantages:

- teams who've made a break and downfield and are held down would not lose momentum or their try scoring opportunity as the defence will not have got back when the penalty is awarded.

- if an attacking side is awarded a penalty whilst in the opponents 40, the territorial advantage gained is negligible and can result in a loss of momentum.

- the game would flow better

if a player continues to hold down the player once back to one has been called then you could have an automatic sin-bin for the offender.

i wouldn't allow kicks for goal from these penalties.

penalties for violent conduct, high tackles and what the referee deems to be "serious offences" would be punishable in the same way they are now and you could even go as far as to make a penalty kick worth 3.

I've said for years get rid of the 'markers not square'rule. annoys me no end.
As for your idea, I dunno, I like it but its a draaaastic change. Can't see it myself, I think players would moan it was confusing not knowing what a penalty was given for but you're not far off a great idea there.

yeah, it's probably in need of a bit of tweaking.

three short whistles could signify a "back to one offence" and I don't think there'd be any confusion once everyone got used to it.

great idea

a penalty is too big a stick to beat a defending team for a minor offence.

how many times you see teams scoring off a penalty when its for something very minor

OK, so 10 seconds from the end of the game, your team is one point behind and on the attack. Defending team is penalised and you are not able to take a kick at goal? Not for me thanks.

so even if it makes RL better in 99% of cases you wouldnt go for it based on that scenario?

i think winning a game in that manner (offside, markers not square, holding down) is a bit of a cop out and more suited to rugby union.

So you think kicking for goal should be taken out of the game altogether? I know some people associate kicking with Rugby Union but it has been a major part of Rugby League for many years and should continue to do so. It may make more sense if the attacking team were given the option of six more tackles or the kick at goal - though I see some difficulties putting that into practice.

Why? Its the rules. SO being high tackled and kicking the penalty wouldnt be a cop out? How do you draw the line on what should and should not be awarded a penalty?

Interesting idea.
I think its probably a bit too drastic.

ONe thing that should be addressed.
When the ball isnt played properly ala.. Lee Briers,
Penelty should go the other way.

well, no. what i said was that a penalty from a high tackle could be kicked. I just think 2 points stemming from an offside, markers not square or holding down is a bit of a cop out.


everything would still be a "penalty" but there'd be two categories.

Category 1: Holding down, offside, markers not square, interference at the play the ball, ball stealing

Category 2: Punching, high tackle, violent conduct

You could only kick for touch or goal from a category two offence.

It's just an idea!

dont worry its a great idea.

some people just struggle with change

thats just gonna complicate things even more.

in the circumstance described above wouldnt it be classed as a professional foul anyway? punishable by a penalty and sinbinning

yes at first probably



but i think we'd get used to it eventually. the idea of two markers and a defensive line ten yards back seemed tricky originally!

which circumstance do you mean?

why, soccer has red card / yellow card.

basically unless its a violent conduct you cant kick for touch.

its very simple.

endless penalties ruin a game.

the best part of the game is when it just flows without stoppages

a game can build up nice momentum and its great to watch

you get endless stupid penalties and it makes the game stop start.

especially when its for a penalty for a minor infringement

we want to have a game which flows, not something which allows referress to get involved.

Or maybe if teams were square at marker, got back 10 meters and didn't commit high tackles as often the game would flow?

if that attitude was around in 1907 we would still be playing rugby union

were a player in an attacking position is held down deliberately to slow it down in the last few seconds of the game!

i think your idea has legs, the main problem i would see in practise is that it may speed the game up too much,

i know the offending team lose a lot from a penalty with either points or a lot of yards but they also get a little breather and to reset the line, back to one hammers a team struggling to get back with more tackles to make quickly, all the attacking team would need to do is keep running at the markers struggling to get in position making 10 yards down the field and staying on the 1st tackle

im not sure it doesnt put too much effort into fitness, but it would be interesting to see it trialled and see how players and coaches adjust

in a similar vain, i would like to see a 5 minute sin bin for all head high challenges, i think tackle technique would change very quickly and they would disappear from the game,

i also wonder, with the amount of dummy half running we see these days, whether allowing teams to have a third marker wouldnt change it up a bit, it would take someone out of the defensive line so there would be a bit more space on the fringes encouraging more creative play

I understand what you're getting at.

But I think if the game were to become faster and more emphasis put on fitness then this would be a step forward for the sport.

some of the most enterprising play and skill is showcased when defences are tiring.

I think the tactic of teams committing a foul intentionally so their team can have a rest is something that we shouldn't accept. if the rules i'm talking about were put in place then teams would not intentionally give away penalties as there'd be no guarantee of a rest! All it would mean is that they'd have to make six more tackles.

The back to one would hammer tiring defences but surely this is a positive aspect of my idea? The incentive to be squeaky clean in all aspects of the game would still be there because if you're not then you're not going to get the ball.



What about clumsy tackles where there is no malice or agression?

Only complication would be for the ref, and players able to understand if it was a full blown penalty or reset the tackle count. Not sure the offences in the category 1 can be classed as minor. Interference at PTB is an effective way of slowing opponents ball down, downgrading that would just result in even more negative play.

How would spectators know of the 'penalty' and more tackles to follow?

restarting the tackle count is still a fair penalty, its just not as draconian as a kick for touch & restarting the tackle count