Why?

The 40/20 rule is the best modern rule change by a mile.

And totally ignored by players / coaches who just can't seem to see how good and powerful it is.
Somehow running through a brick wall is seen as easier.

WELL said it should have been brought in years ago we used to have a player Kevin Harking who if around now would kick 1 or 2 or more ever match

Go to 12 men. Replace scrum with something like grid iron. All tacklers to stand square so if 4 in tackle the 4 at PTB.
No teammate can touch a kick unless it has bounced and even then not behind the line.

Also, on balance, I'd prefer the NRL rule of a 7-tackle set when a kick goes dead-in-goal.
And with that, another hobby-horse of mine; as grubber kicks are such a big part of the game (unlike, say, in union, where they're much less common), even if we accept pitch sizes may vary a little, the depth of the in-goal should be cast in stone as the same at all grounds. The variations we see are ridiculous.

Either way, we should play the sames rules in every game world-wide; different rules in different countries is a joke.

The one I really hate is when teams (you know who you are!) trap the ball in the 2nd row of the scrum to win a penalty. This rule seems to have no relevance in the modern game.

See also, dummy-halves deliberately throwing the ball at an offside opponent.

No problem with that. If the player is too slow or dumb to get onside then they deserve penalising.
Offside doesn't change, it's just different chancers.

5 point try for tries that don't come from kicks. (Too many come from kicks these days)

Bonus point for a try under the posts

3 points for a penalty conversion.

A sensor in the ball that detects forward motion passes.

Sensors at the top of the posts to determine if a kick actually went over.

Only two tackling players at one time. (A third and forth are there just to slow down the play.)

A time limit of 45 seconds on video refs decision. If they can't decide it's no try.

The motion of the players hands matters, not the motion of the ball.

If each player had wrist band sensors or a chip implanted and the ball had a sensor you could determine if the attacking players were in front of the ball when it was passed. I don't know it would probably be too messy to implement.

The majority of forward passes aren't situations where the receiver was already in front of the passer though. Gelling's forward pass to Charnley in the Grand Final was one of the biggest forward passes you are likely to see, yet Charnley was in line with Gelling when the ball was passed. So we would be investing a lot of money in technology without much use. Aside from that, have you seen how often the refs, who aren't involved in any collisions, have trouble with a simple comms kit? Imagine how much trouble we would have with 34 pairs of wrist sensors, and sensors in every match ball, all of which will be involved in loads of collisions, and yet presumably would need to be finely calibrated. It's a nice idea but totally impractical.

Considering the more entertaining tries that are scored tend to come out wide I'd disagree with this.

Couldn't agree more. Warrington in particular are clearly coached to try and place the markers out of position - they consistently lurch forward or sideways a step or two before placing the ball - marginal but often leaves the markers unable to defend. Drives me mad. Ryan Atkins is imo the worst offender by far.

Another rule I'd bin is the ref's try/no try call. If the ref isn't sure he's doing nothing more than making his best guess, which places the VR in a more difficult position. It adds complications where there are enough already. Peyroux's disallowed try is a great example of why it doesn't work.


Of course it does - it polices offside at the scrum: "To be in play, the ball must emerge from the scrum..." A switched-on team uses all the rules to their advantage and this is no different.

It might be cheeky and frustrating for the opposition, but it's completely legal and places the onus on the defending team to see the ball in play or hear the ref's call before they move up in defence.

Nah it's a horrible idea.

I'm working on my tact in the off season

Nail on head. How the heck can one sport be played using different rules? Not only are some of the rules different, the number of refs used is different (which definitely impacts play) and some of the interpretations are different. It's an absolutely ridiculous situation to be in, and just makes the sport seem even more amateur.

I don't know I think it's more degrading conceding a try under your own sticks and should it not be punished more than some fortuitous kick in the corner for a winger to dive on?

Come back and post this when you don't have talima tautai playing for you, then you can point fingers

Back to 4 tackle rule - no only joking

Proper play the ball with the foot, not this silly roll the ball backwards and step over it and also allow the 1st marker to strike for the ball - ahh the Dereck Pike good old days

Or a lucky grubber under the sticks that bounces oddly?

Cracking tries are scored all across the width of the pitch not just in one area. And the same is true of weak defence. It just depends on the attacks type of game. Some teams with a top hooker and props who are good support runners will score nearer the posts. But so will teams who attack from their own half.

Teams with good centres and wingers will score more out wide than in the middle. But so will teams who struggle and just stick a kick to the corner.

Where a try is scored usually has no relevance to the quality of the try.

How about properly contested scrums with the referee/match official feeding the ball down the middle? It's just become a formality and a farce over the past few decades. Players not packing down properly and forwards now taking backs positions in the attacking and defending lines. If the only reason for keeping them is because people like to see some attacking moves (from the scrum) why don't we just get rid and come up with another way of making 6 players on each team dormant. Rather than a scrum why not make the forwards go off the pitch for the next set? 7 v 7 would encourage some really entertaining attacking play with all the extra space. I remember the Wigan 7's years ago and it was brilliant entertainment.

The whole 'foot out of play then touch the ball' annoys me, i'd penalise that or at least make the rules clearer.

Yes! Horrible rule.