Four clubs have agreed to trial experimental rule changes in their Boxing Day festive friendlies. The three changes will be trialled in the Leeds v Wakefield and Batley v Dewsbury fixtures and are hoped to enhance the aesthetics of rugby league. READ MORE ON THIS STORY....

Four clubs have agreed to trial experimental rule changes in their Boxing Day festive friendlies. The three changes will be trialled in the Leeds v Wakefield and Batley v Dewsbury fixtures and are hoped to enhance the aesthetics of rugby league. READ MORE ON THIS STORY....

About time.



Terrible.



What's the point?

Hmm, not a fan of any of them to be honest but willing to see how they affect the game before passing judgement, however think that the charge down change would be too much advantage to the defending side and result in seeing players reluctant to try something different, like a little chip over the top maybe?

As far as the third one is concerned, why not just revert back to the "loose" forward role?

Isn't this kind of discouraging teams to go for a 40/20?
What happens if you go for a 40/20 but fall slightly short of the opponent's 20m line? This new rule would see the scrum feed a further 20m up field than where the ball went out of play. Seems a little bit counter-productive in my opinion.

The chargedown rule is good, I don't really like the other two.

Nah, it would be a scrum where it goes out. A tap 40 only occurs if it goes dead in goal.

I like the 40 metre tap rule. too many teams go for the get out of jail big boot trick. more place kicking will be involved now and keep the game flowing a little more.

Don't fix what's not broken. None of the rules needed changing, so why change them?

This is madness. If this trend for individual countries changing the rules continues, how many different sets of rules will rugby league have in years to come?

There appears to be nothing to stop, for example, the Russians, the French, the Serbs etc...all making up their own set of rules.

In fact, why stop at individual countries having their own unique set of rules. We could have Yorkshire rules, Lancashire rules, Southern England rules etc....

The game is becoming a joke. What other serious sport allows this nonsense. The game in the UK has far more serious and pressing concerns for the governing body to be prioritising (clubs in serious financial difficulties, a licencing system that is seemingly unable to carry out a basic financial audit of a clubs financial health before awarding a licence, the loss of millions in government subsidy to name just three areas in this country to be going on with).

Is there not someone in the RFL and the Australian RL Commision hierarchy who actually gives a monkeys about the wider global vision of the game? The national governing bodies of the game need to get together to firstly set down one set of rules which everyone should abide by, and secondly come up with a system (presumably similar to other sports) where suggested rule changes are looked at and either rejected or implemented globally.

I like the first one, puts more emphasis on a tactical kicking game and may encourage halves to work more on this side of the game. Something many many players sorely need.

The second, I would suggest, is to attempt and create some more 'off the cuff' play on the last, especially in the event of an initial kick being charged down. Could work either way but I'm fairly skeptical as to whether it'll make any difference at all. One thing it will effect is how defences deal with short range grubbers, we may see a lot of wild swipes at the ball.

The third is clearly designed to create more attacking play, however it's just handicapping the defence by allowing the attacking team to drop a player out. If the defence has to keep 6 in the scrum whilst the attack only need 5, it seems a bit daft to me.

Stop messing with the rules. All countries should play to international rules.

Agreed. We need the RLIF to become more like FIFA in terms of controlling things like the rules. But that would require the Aussies to give the RLIF a larger role, which I can't see happening.

Its a trial for christs sake not changing the rules. RL has always been about innovation. Maybe we should go back to lineouts and 15 a side.

I like the first two changes.

If you cannot kick the ball dead it puts more emphasis on good kicking. On the last you can either go for distance or have to be perfect to avoid losing 40 metres or you have to have an attacking kick or run on the last.

Either way it will make for a more interesting attacking game.

The rule about the charge down is also good. It will mean kickers are under more pressure on the last tackle the defence can take a chance and attack the kicker hence leaving a gap for the attack to exploit or they can stand back.

Both these rules will mean a more attacking less metronomic game. We often criticise RL for five runs and a kick. These two rules will encourage more options in attack as if you get the kick wrong you wil be in trouble.

The scrum rule makes sense because we do not have contested scrums and it is a way of rewarding attacking play. However the defence has the option of putting a push on if they have an extra man. It adds a degree of uncertainty into the scrum or the attacking play.

95% of scrums now consist of the feeding team winning the scrum and having a withdrawn forward running the ball in. This will create different options for a team.
Wigan fans should love all these rules!

I do understand that it's a trial. I don't have a problem with trying out improvements to the game.

However, in my opinion, it must be done with the consensus of all the other full members of the RLIF rather than one country's governing body trialling the new rules without the agreement of the other countries.

If this trial is "successful" I presume that the UK will implement the changes regardless of what any of the other full members of the RLIF think. If so, we will end up with 3 versions (to my knowledge) of the rules of RL (the UK version, the Australian version, & the International rules).

Kicking the ball dead from inside your own half - where the ball is kicked dead or touch in goal from inside the kicker’s own half, play will be restarted with a handover at the centre of the 40m line nearest to the non-kicking team’s goal line.

This rule doesn't award kicks that might be great and go into the in goal, and then only just roll off the pitch. It also doesn't award 40/20 attempts that might take a wrong bounce. They are trying to punish clearing kicks but at the same time might put off kickers.

Charge down - charging down the ball does not restart the tackle count. If the kicking team regains possession the tackle count will continue as before. The charge down will still not count as a knock on.

Warrington try quite a lot on kick pressure and charge downs, but the risk/reward a lot of the time isn't there. I agree with this rule.

Attacking team option to reduce numbers in scrum - where a team is awarded a scrum, the feeding team has the option of only putting five men in the scrum giving them eight “backs” to attack with.

We might possibly see some contested scrums as it would be tempting to push against only 5 men.

One rule I'd like to see is that you can't simply bomb kick from say 30 or more metres out and chase, if you can't get near the opponents line you don't deserve to just hit and hope like that.

An accurate, steep bomb is probably the hardest thing to do in our game, there's nothing 'hit and hope' about it.

The 40m tap is a definite no for me. The defending team already get a 20m advantage, if they want to defend those kicks they can do, they choose not to.

The charge down is a no from me aswell. The defending team already get the benefit of the chargedown not being a knock-on, I don't see why a deliberate play at the ball shouldn't result in another set of 6 for whoever gains possession.

The scrum thing im unsure but I'd like to see trialled, it could open up scrums a bit with either the attack having an extra man or the defending scrum putting on a push. But then teams like Wigan seem to have no problem attacking from scrums as it is.

Hey, at least they're not trying out the NRL All Stars "Power Play" rule...

I would like to see any change that could.lessen the use of kicks in.the final third.

Whats made it worse on the high kicks is the batting back of the ball in this situation.

I think i would eliminate that style of challenge in the air where there is a deliberate attempt to strike the ball away not challenge for it - on both sides.

Id also limit repeat sets to two dropouts and maybe eventually to one.

I suppose the "chargedown" rule is an attempt to see more teams trying to attack the kicker on the 4th and 5th tackles. Might as well go for it, knowing if you fail they only get one more attempt or it gets handed over anyway. All that WILL happen though is the kicker will drop a bit further back for his kick.

I think there's merit in the scrum rule. Too many teams just trundle a second row up at first receiver which doesn't entertain anyone. An extra attacker would see more enterprise.

The 40m tap is harsh. There would be an inch between what is the best kick in the world and a kick being severely detrimental to your own side. Kickers would pull kicks up short from their own half which would result in the fullback taking the ball with ease and making it back to around the 40m line anyway.

A charge down is an optional risk and I feel the rule is fine as it stands. You aren't forced to charge down and people know the 'extra set' rule before they go for it. No need to change this.

Looking forward to seeing how they work anyway.

Happened at Leeds today. Paul McShane put in a lovely kick from just inside the own half that split the winger and full back, but took two big hops forward and rolled dead.

Wakefield got an extra 20m ground out of a kick being a couple of yards too heavy. If he had belted it straight down the full back's throat, he would probably have been tackled around the 30m mark.