Also what about the try Leeds scored against Catalans a few years ago? That involved a kick. Or when Thomas Bosc chipped over the defence twice to score? Or when Tomkins did likewise? Why is that piece of skill only allowed 4 points yet someone barging over from dummy half or simply picking up a dropped ball is allowed 6?
There are boring tries from kicks but there are also boring tries from running or passing. If teams can't defend one aspect of the game then it's the other teams right to exploit that weakness.

We could increase the kicking skill options and then start to have lineouts!

Kick in the air on the fifth. Palmed back by the winger, goes through 2/3 pairs of hands before the try is scored. is that a "try from a kick" or are we just talking about "catch and flop" tries?.....................or where inbetween do we draw the line?

I've just said that.

Getting three-points for kick tries is probably a bit too blunt a measure - you get some great tries from kicks.

I'd like to trial the consequences of extending the area where a catch on the full results in a 20m restart to the 10m line (further out could lead to negative consequences in other situations). This could encourage whole teams to improve their contesting and catching skills. We'd probably see a reduction in some of the punt and pray efforts, while planned high kicks - those more likely to result in a try - would carry on, along with more grubber kicks.

And I'd throw in not restarting the tackle count following a charge-down, for good measure, because I've supported that for ages.

This is Rugby League - how can there possibly be too many tries scored, regardless of how they are scored - if ya dont like seeing lots of tries go and watch that other code of Rugby Football !!

just let the teams decide how they want to play.
Why is a kick and catch any less skillful or worthy of a try than a pass and catch?