the referree can signal six to go for the minor penalties

Your first point i'd agree, it could be at the referees discretion to pull it up and award the 'penalty' e.g. deliberate slowing with a minute to go.
I don't personally like your idea of all head high challenges in the bin. We have a contact sport and occasionally there will be them, for me it's part and parcel. IMO chicken wings should be an instant sin bin though.

Again sod 3rd markers..GET RID OF 'MARKERS SQUARE'!!
haha sorry it's something i'd love to see implemented, to stop all the dummy half running, or one out football and get rid of those feckin annoying penalties where the tackled player gets up moves a yard to the left and the hooker goes right 'PIIING'.
People would need to be 'slightly' more creative, no need for 5m defence lines or 3rd markers ere!

It's simplification by reducing the options. Basically a penalty is given, but the team that the penalty is awarded to can only take the tap - except that it's a re-start by ptb. Not a big change at all.
Would be interesting to trial it and see how it goes. I think that as a speccy I would get really confused as to what is going on - would need an in-stadium announcer to explain that the count was zeroed.

a full blown penalty would be indicated the same way as it is now, a back-to-one penalty would be indicated by three short blasts of the whistle and the existing back to one signal.

interference is an effective of slowing opponents down but it would still be penalised so I don't think the incentive to interfere would be that great. You're still costing your side another six tackles.

It isn't a "downgrading" of offences as such, more a way of speeding up the process of the spotting and awarding of a penalty for a common offence.

Illiegally slowing down opponents ball is not a minor offence, it breaks the flow, results in a succession of drives and a kick because the defence is already set by the time the ball is back in open play.

even those, i think it would force players to always err on the side of caution when tackling around the head, a clumsy tackle is accidental and yes it has no malice but it is still avoidable,

i think what we would see rather than lots of players in the bin, is a change in tackle technique which would mean we just wouldnt see head high tackles anymore

the only dispensation i would give is when a player falls into it because that is just unfortunate and not really the fault of the tackler

this is some of the best thinking ive read on here

this is the kind of good idea you get from a leading NRL coach who has a great knowledge of the game and thinks about how to improve it

some people have raised some valid critisisms but they are fairly minor

a kick for touch and a restart of the penalty count are way to draconian

I don't think it would be that confusing for spectators or players and I certainly don't think a stadium announcement would be required!

If back-to-one is called by the ref at the moment, it's pretty clear to most people what's happened. If you add three blasts of the whistle to this then I don't think there'd be much confusion.

That's the main plus of the idea for me, keep it flowing.
Not only that but i reckon the 40m a team gains is too much sometimes for petty offences.

On a slightly different note how do you think it would affect scores? Because sometimes you can 'clear your line' with a penalty. Would the better teams benefit far too much from a rule change like this? or would it make no difference?

everyone used to love bill harrigan being the ref for origin.

why?

he let the game flow and would hardly blow penalties.

the problem with this is if players know this they will deliberately commit more offenses knowing the penalty will be small.

but clearly the goal of less penalties in a game is a good one.

another suggestion is to maybe have use of the sin bin if a player commits say 3 penalties, much like personal fouls in basketball

But much of what you are classifying as "minor penalties" are actually very cynical offences, simply awarding another set of six would encourage more cynical play result in few line breaks and more conservative play.

the worst is when a team in defence has put a big effort and get to last tackle, and then for a very minor offence the attack gets a penalty and invariably a try as they are tired from all that tackling

That's an interesting point. On many occasions a penalty for offside, particularly for a team under pressure from an over ethusiastic defence possibly chasing the game, is a real "get out of jail" card for them.

Whilst there would be no real territorial advantage gained, there would be six more tackles given to the team with the ball for them to use. A lot would depend on whether the defence was fit enough to maintain the intensity in their defence for these extra six tackles.

The well drilled, defensively solid and fit sides would benefit from this rule but surely that's how it should be anyway?

my concern would be that most players tend to stop and look at the referee when he blows his whistle - usually to find out why the whistle has gone (because the players never commit fouls or break the rules you know

)

so the ball carrier stops but the defenders push him back 10 yards - where do you play the ball from - where he was tackled or where he ends up? You'd end up having to stop the game anyway to play the ball in the right place.

Just can't it working myself

as ive said above, repeated offenses and you can use a 5 minute sin bin

they arent going to push him back 10 m?

thats a minor gripe.

If a player continues the current offending act after the penalty has been given (indicated by the three blasts of the whistle and back to one signal) then I guess the referee would be forced to step in and decide a harsher punishment for the offending party.

I guess one solution would be, if the above does happen then the ball is marched ten yards forward (ala talking back to the ref) from where the penalty was given. otherwise the back-to-one penalty would be played from where the ball carrier was when the referee's whistle blew.

What you are suggesting is a measure to encourage illegal play, that results in less attractive games to watch and games not flowing so much. You say you want games to flow more, yet you are proposing something that would mean games would not flow so much.

As for repeated offences, that is down to interpretation. Foul play is not being penalised appropriately in NRL and particularly SL currently, so I am sure a 5 min bin for repeated offences would be used sparingly.

its not encouraging illegal play, its just reducing the penalty

they used to behead people for things they now put them in jail for

the punishment should fit the crime

with the introduction of the 10 m. rule then the impact of a penalty is much larger given the ground teams can gain.

under a 5 m. rule you couldnt easily make 50 m. in one set of 6 so a penalty didnt lead to a try most of the time.

these days with the amount of ground you can gain under 10 m. rule then if you get a penalty in a fair field position ie your 30 m. or closer to the opponents line, then you have a great chance of scoring a try.

it isn't a measure to encourage illegal play at all. all illegal play would still be punished by a penalty. it could even be said that a "back-to-one penalty" is a bigger punishment (particularly for a team defending their own line) as there is no opportunity for a breather. indeed, some offences are committed intentionally by players so that their team-mates can get back onside/regain their shape/get their breath back. this would eradicate that.

i'm not sure how my idea would prevent a game flowing as most offences would not result in the game being stopped.

sounds like a good idea - too sensible for Red Hall though

It IS a good idea.
But it's so drastic that it would have to be properly thought out/researched by your friends at red hall. It wouldn't be easy to say 'right from next year we do this', for me it would be such a revolutionary change to the game.
By the time they ever got round to introducing this the chances are something better will have come along.
The more I think of it, the more I like this idea actually.
There's POSSIBLY a way of implementing it at first for one or two offences, see how it goes before moving on to cover offside etc

what the nrl does with new ideas is either trial them first.

if the results of the trial look good then maybe its a goer.

play some trial games to see if its an improvement

weve been trialling 2 refs in some lower levels of the game for a year before bringing it in to the nrl

re dragons 1965