see.

1. Reduce tries that are scored directly from kicks to 2 points. If there is a pass after the kick, like in the Mark Gasnier try from Greg Inglis in 2008 vs. NZ then it's a 4 point try.
2. Get rid of conversions.
3. Interchanges down to 8.
4. Reduce the number of players on the bench to 3. Carl Ablett didn't come on during the semi-final.
5. In-goals down to 5.9 metres. Repeat sets are too easy to get. Though this isn't much of an issue in England.

1 & 3 have bn mentioned by many ppl over the past 2 years. I want to see less wasted time so aerobic capacity plays a bigger role in the sport. I want training regimes to change so they spend less time lifting weights. This is one way of going about it, and also making it less important to have really tall wingers or centres. The Roosters used this too much during 2013 for my liking.

OzWelsh are you Phil Clarke?

1. Pathetic idea, some of best tries I've seen have come directly from kicks.
2. Just Stupid.
3. 10 interchanges is about right IMO.
4. 4 on the bench is what it should be.

Disagree on everything apart from the kicks idea. I'd just say that tries scored directly from a kick don't get a kick for conversion.

There would still be tries from kicks, just that they would be half the number points, so hopefully more quality and less quantity of them.

With regards to idea number 4, you can't use one example as an argument for a rule change!

Disagree on all.

1. Tries from kicks aren't a problem, teams just need to defend them better. All it does is further complicate an already complicated game.

2. No reason to get rid of conversions. It occasionally adds an extra dimension to the game.

3. Think 10 is about right. Much less and you start losing the bigger forwards (the few we have left) due to fitness demands. Again losing another dimension.

4. Unnecessary change and just reduces options available to coaches.

5. Not necessary here and you only picked 5.9m so that it's just under the current minimum of 6m.

Introduce items 1 and 2 and Kev may as well hang up his boots.

Amuses me that fans of the self titled, THE GREATEST GAME spend time thinking of ways to change it

Well fax, as Michael Vick is probably the world's best all-round sportsman but can't get a game in the NFL at QB and Jay Cutler can, and you need to be at least 183cm to be a QB, Vick is 183, maybe ppl think he's too short, then I'd stop (American) football immediately. Rugby union, their ruck area and scrums, also the line-outs encourage kicking out of play. (European) football, well where do I start, the off-side rule is far too negative/spiteful, should be abolished, too much diving, and it's a stupid game. So that leaves rugby league and (Australian) football as contact sports played on turf/grass, I prefer rugby league. So turn the NY Giants + jest into RL teams and extend the playing area of the Meadowlands.



There's room for improvement in everything. Rugby league will never be perfect, neither will football (Aussie). Unsurprisingly the Aussies have produced the two best team based contact sports on the planet. Though ice hockey isn't too bad, and neither is field hockey.

I'd rather just leave it the way it is. ( well apart from the shoulder charge rule)

What planet are you on?

As Lockyer has said, get rid of the scrum, just have a hand over, I agree.

Australia's try just before half time in the pool game v England shows why the scrum is a good way to hand-over or restart. Burgess was too knackered to get over to pack down....he stood in the centre position and got skinned....it ties up 6 defenders and gives you a fair chance of making good yards on the first set.

Right...that's far Too much actual RL talk from me...I'm off for a lie down

You sound like one of those people who try to be an expert in several subjects and ends up coming across like a complete and utter clueless berk.

thanx, well Jay Cutler wasn't the best example then maybe?



Anyway, look at Peyton Manning, looks as if he would struggle to save a baby from the sea, and M.Vick? Well as you know.

Who?

I want To see the clock stopped as soon as a try is scored. Teams get a minute to get the conversion lined up which happens each time. If 10 tries are scored in a match, that is 10mins less playing time so we are getting less value for money

Well now Lee Briers has retired there'll only be Sinfield cheating on goal line drop outs, so no need to enforce that rule

No you're not. The conversion is part of the game.

What the f are you on about? Do you even watch NFL? Or RL for that matter?

The ramblings of a maniac.

Is that the title of Nigel Wood's auto-biography?

This is just daft. What if its a kick early in the tackle count, surely its up to a side to defend. One of the finest try's I've ever seen at the KC was Moto Tony's in the grand final eliminator against Bradford in 2006. Richard Horne kicking straight from a scrum on halfway towards the side line for Tony to run on to at full speed, skinning Vainakolo on the outside. It was sublime skill. Are you saying that that is less valuable than a one pass move?

Conversions are a reward for teams scoring through the middle nearer to the posts or being in a position to be able to go round the posts. Its not very often that a side that scores more try's will lose the game to conversions.

THIS guy is on a wind up and he has got people biting ignow him he might go away

For me:

1. Scrap the video ref
2. No tries from bounced passes. Too often defences are disrupted by poor or misdirected passes that have gone to ground. Poor play shouldn't be rewarded IMO.
3. A fairly minor one but irritating none the less: when did it become obligatory to trail a couple of classes-worth of kids onto the field at every opportunity? I've no objection to kids playing, either pre-match or at half time, but just leading them out onto the pitch while holding their hands is cringeworthy at best and, depending on the player, sometimes out-and-out disturbing.