Markers not square.
I dont like it, and it would stop such lazy one out running.

What should happen? Are you suggesting the referee should make up a reason to disallow a try just because he has doubts?

id look at the PTB, we need to make sure that there is a benefit for winning the collision, right now there isnt, its a lottery over whether the ref will blow for holding down or not, its a difficult question but its the worst part of the game right now, it needs to be a bit quicker in general and a lot more consistent

id like to see the markers being able to stand either side of the ptb rather than directly in front. it would minimize the scooting from dummy half, but not remove the broken play won by winning the collision and getting a quick ptb.

Any head high challenge 5 minutes in the bin, 3 penalties in a row given away by the same team, automatic 5 mins in the bin for the third offender.

oh and double movement, we seemed to have a rule, and it seemed to work quite well, but with Mcguires disallowed try at the weekend it seems to have changed

Two referees would solve most of that Smokey

I wouldn't say it has, and that's as a Leeds fan.

The tackle is completed when the ball carrying arm hits the ground in those circumstances, and is deemed to finish where the player's momentum ceases.

So had McGuire not promoted the ball in order to reach the line, but instead kept it exactly where it was and slid over under his own momentum then the try should have been awarded. That he lifted the arm after the tackle was "complete" (by the first part of the sentence above) in order to reposition the ball and gain an advantage made it a double movement.

That's always been my understanding of the rule anyway, that once your ball carrying arm hits the deck you can't promote the ball in any way either by reaching out to ground it or passing it to a team-mate.

it would a bit, but i want to see the PTB to be more structured.

If we had two refs, i would test out having one of them simply watching and judging the collision and ptb with them making a call on every tackle over who won the collision. call it for the attack you get off immediately, you call it for defence they get a little longer. A defender should be rewarded for a crunching tackle, but at perversely the moment an attacker is likely to get a quicker ptb by being crunched than by winning the collision and striving for a few extra metres

Im not sure there is much skill in the defence we are seeing right now where two or three players are simply adding themselves to the tackle whilst it is being completed with the sole aim of getting a bit longer to reset, that isnt skill and it isnt impressive, it doesnt make for an interesting spectacle.

Kick the ball dead and its a turnover to the opposition where it was kicked from.

Lose the ball (fumble) in any direction and it's a scrum or play on if the opposition pick it up.

Penalty goals from foul play worth 3 points and the offender 10 minutes automatically in the bin (may help with coaching tackling techniques)

Home team to change their colours if there is a clash with the opposition. ( May help with marketing the game)

THe video ref abandoned until all games get the same level of coverage.

All people playing the game WORLD WIDE play to the same agreed rules.

but that hasnt been what we have seen for a few years at least.

look at the Mcguire no-try earlier in the year against wigan (i think), here his ball carrying arm hit the ground, he was then rolled over by the defender onto his back, before Mcguire stretched out over his head and tried to put the ball down. This was a try not disallowed for a double movement, it wasnt something even mentioned by anyone, but because some felt Mcguire had lost control of the ball when he tried to put it down.

I think last season there was another example of a Quins player whose ball carrying arm hit the deck in wet conditions, and sliding towards the sideline he offloaded, this was given. The reasons from Cummins was that the tackle wasnt completed until his movement was stopped and by definition the tackle wasnt complete and the player was free to offload.

I would also say we see those tries given on a very regular basis

Attacking side not being allowed to kick the ball in the opposition 30 metre area (except for penalty,conversion and drop goals).

I see where your coming from rufus bat that's a bit drastic.I would go for grubbers only.Tries that result from a high kick to the corner do nothing for me either.

That's a big one for me - but the turnover should only be if the ball is kicked dead from outside the 20, otherwise a tap on the 20 as it is now

This would force the attacking team to really up the kicking game - there is far too much benefit for the attacking team to boot the ball dead from half way and line the defence up on the 30... made even worse with the referees not allowing a fast tap

Simple. Any ball diffused by a defender in the in goal, that was put there by the attacking team results in a 20m tap. If a defender takes the ball in goal himself it would be a dropout as usual
Those kicks would have to be positioned further out by the kicker and we'd see less of these tries imo

That was aimed at GSF's point

1. Split the field into three parts from end to end so that if you score a try in the two side parts, the kick for goal is worth 3 points and if it's in the middle part it's worth 2 points.
These parts would not be equal either, 5 metres in from both touchlines after that it's the middle part.

2. Do away with this dragging into touch rule it's rubbish

3. If tackled behind your own line 1 point to other team then a dropout, similar to a safety in NFL BUT only if the ball was received in field first, so if you receive the ball and you were already in goal when this happens it's just a straight drop out.

4. When awarded a penalty, given 3 options, a) take 10 b)kick for touch c) extra tackle in the count (7 tackles then a hand over)

5. Bigger scrums (8 man) to give the backs more room in the 1st tackle

6. 3 infringement automatic sin bin: every time a player has commited a 3rd infringement even if they have all been for different things he takes 10 mins in the bin. he come out and it's reset to 0.

7. Leniency on 1 on 1 BIFF, 2 on 1 or any other numbers and they are reffered to the RFL panel. the two 1 on 1 biffers get FIVE mins in the bin NOT ten when they have finished

The first knock on.Why should a team be given the feed at a scrum when their player has knocked on?When a player drops the ball the opposition has a choice.Leave the ball on the ground where it is and take the feed at the scrum OR,make an attempt to retrieve the ball but if fumbling in the process then concede the scrum.Don't understand why we go back to the first knock on if the other team has failed in an attempt to continue play.

Because you're playing advantage. If no advantage accrues, you go back to the original offence.


These threads invariably convince me that at least half of fans have no real idea about the game they're watching - a classic example is the post above to go back to 8 man scrums (ie reintroduce flankers). One of the defining rule changes that made rugby league rugby league rather than financially honest rugby union was getting rid of the flankers and reducing the scrum to six - rebalancing a team to six forwards and seven backs (ie more backs than forwards) - in 1907. 103 years later somone wants to change that to 8 forwards and five backs, including halves, meaning tams have far, far more forwards on the pitch than backs. Open running rugby? No thanks - we want lots of forwards running into each other :ROLL:

because we play the advantage, if the defending team get one, we allow them to play on, if we dont we restart.

you also have to remember at the point of the players making the decision of whether to pick it up or leave it, the referee hasnt actually signalled a knock on. Your idea would leave us with situations where players left the ball believing there to have been a knock on, the referee judging there wasnt and a the opposition running in under the posts

I don't want them as true forwards, just two extra men made to sit in the scrum leaving more room for that 1st tackle. It's not as if the scrum is a true one anyway in league.

Get the penalty try out of the rulebook. They're awarded less often than Steve Rider's seen in the South Stand at Headingley, and it would be one less thing for Sky's Mutt and Jeff to witter on about.

Agree with the first and to some extent the third (but I think slight pressure should be fine as long as it's clearly not a bounce ball). However strongly disagree with your focus on the second point. It's one major coup we have over RU and reflects the ethos of our game to reward positive open rugby. In RU I have seen on many occasions (including the last WC Final no less) refs saying to the Video Ref "Can you find a reason why I shouldn't give a try". That hardly inspires players to get over the line does it?

The way I see it is that once a player has got over your line they have earned the benefit of any proceeding doubt - or perhaps more appropriately the defending team has lost it by allowing the line to be breached. From here on in, as it is clear the hard bit (i.e. getting over the line) has been done the ref should assume that the (comparatively) easy business of landing on the ground with the ball (i.e. grounding) should take care of itself in the event the that ref (and Video Ref) are unsighted. I agree with your point that the defence deserves to be awarded for stopping a try but I think that reward should be conditional on not allowing the line to be breached. In such an event the defending team must be able to show they have held the ball up because the odds on such an event are slimmer and the ref's assumption should reflect this.

I would however advocate a refs call as this would put the final decision in the hands of the person who first declared the doubt to be in evidence. That way a scenario where a ref is pretty sure a try was NOT scored but is unsure how the restart the game finds a try given by the VR because the VR could not see properly and so gave benefit of the doubt. But it would be a very retrograde step to deny tries simply because of poor positioning from officials and in some cases TV cameras.

But that's exactly the way the VR works in RL - not just the "TMO" in RU: the assumption is always a try has been scored unless there's clear evidence that it hasn't (ie a reason not to give it) rather than "is there any reason I should award a try" (with the inevitable corollary that the presumption is 'no try' unless you there is firm evidence of one being scored - ie, defender in the way, can't see the grounding? No try, even though you don't have evidence that it[i wasn't[/i grounded). And it's the right way to do it - as you say later in your post. You seem to be arguing to change it to the way it is, because you misunderstand the way it actually is - imo of course.

Just got to know the right dealers

Video ref to be limited to one slo mo from each angle and susbsequently one freeze frame from chosen angle. If he can't decide from that then try or ideally ref call. I don't understand how a video ref can watch the same replay umpteen times and have no doubt.

Double movements to be assessed in real time.

I'd also get rid of ball stripping one on one, i think it complicates decisions for the referee and leads to confusion.

I'm not sure about your first point,but I whole heartidly agree with you concerning the playoffs,8 is 2 too many for me.