Glad to see the six again rule improved. Not before time either.

The new ruck rules seem ok though making sense of them on the field might be another thing altogether.

Yay more changes and, most importantly/worrying, sees us moving away from the rules played by the main/strongest form of the game i.e the NRL.

The farce that is the RFL seem to be going big guns for the last few months of the year.

Hmm not sure on that one. The 6 again change brings up closer to the NRL, not further away. The ruck needs an overhaul over here so I'm cautiously in favour of those changes.

If anything the main downside IMO is that it will be a big adjustment for teams who are skilled at wrestling aka Wigan.

Wigans game plan of getting as many players to flop and lie on as possible is now out of the window. Well, if the pro Wigan refs actually enforce it

The one I find interesting is were it says that the defensive line can only move when the player touches the ball with his heel at the play the ball. Considering very few players touch the ball with their foot at the play the ball this leaves it open to interpretation from the ref, who we are supposed to be trying to help. I know that it says there will be a clampdown on incorrect play the balls with players being told that they must make a genuine attempt to touch the ball with their foot, but this has always been the rule anyway. I think the wording "genuine attempt" should be removed and that it should read " has to touch the ball " with their foot. Otherwise refs will be slated all season whenever the ball is rolled through the legs and a penalty isn't given and then a try is scored from the resulting play. Let's face it playing the ball with the foot was always a basic of the game and shouldn't be hard for any player. Unfortunately in our rush to embrace speeding up everything about the game we have let a basic skill fall to the wayside.

But they don't have play the balls in union, which is the sport you actually watch, so why does it even warrant you commenting? Oh that's right, I forgot... because you're a sad individual with too much time on their hands. As you were...

I was listening to an episode of a Phil Gould podcast, they were talking about some penalties for play the ball offences and Gould spoke about how teams were training to exploit defences by moving sideways at the PTB to give the impression that the defenders were not square and then there was a discussion around the teams training to exploit the rules.

Hearing rumours Matty Lees has retired

These rules will probably affect us more than any other team. I've not seen any stats but we must be the most penalised team at giving away six agains in the opposition 40m. We don't tighten up on that and we'll be constantly giving away terrority and marched downfield.

We also have Walmsley who doesn't play the ball properly most of the time so we could be pinged for that a lot initially too.

On the plus side if the speed of the ruck increases, Clark is as good a 9 as any with a running threat. For all Roby was unbelievable, his running game was practically non-existent these past few years. Having a mobile pack with the likes of Lees, Delaney, Batchelor and Matautia should also suit the new rules so its not all doom and gloom.

This change, if policed properly, will suit the faster teams. The cleaner the ruck, the sooner the ball gets to the speedy backs against less set defences. It will suit us just fine, despite the wishful thinking from certain quarters.

I wonder if the Leeming signing was on the back of knowing that these changes were coming. No one is quicker out of dummy half than him and, when you compare to Powell, it certainly seems a deliberate change of approach.

The change to the 18th man is potentially significant. Previously they could only come on after 3 failed HIAs, now they can be used after 2 HIA failures, or injuries caused by foul play, resulting in a Yellow/Red card, where the player will not return to the game.

Will be fun watching Walmsley navigating the PTB when he has stepped of the mark by 2 metres and told to go back to start again as he never plays it properly anyway and now he has the added pressure to PTB correctly.

We have poss the fastest backline and if the ruck is speeded up it will be of a massive benefit to Wigan.

Whilst I agree that it is better, for me a team should be allowed to use the 18th man after the first failed HIA.

I'm fine with the changes .... I thought most was in the rules anyway just not policed fully. The 6 again is right the stepping off the mark to side and forward has been exploited already and was getting worse. The 18th man should come into effect on any HIA or player lost to foul play, penalty for the incident or put on report should qualify as at least then the team infringed against get some reward, I can live with the odd time it's wrong call especially with all matches being on TV which should help.

Exactly how I read it. Most of these aren't actually changes, maybe just less leniency on the ruck.

Tackles only permitted below armpit from next season https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/67658523

Tackles only permitted below armpit from next season https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/67658523

So, looking at the above photo, this is a foul.

Quote ="--[ WW --"Tackles only permitted below armpit from next season https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/67658523'" I really don't understand why we are still taking orders from the RFL. What happened to the SL breakaway? If it didn't really happen before, it's surely time for it now?

Quote ="--[ WW --"Tackles only permitted below armpit from next season https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/67658523'" I really don't understand why we are still taking orders from the RFL. What happened to the SL breakaway? If it didn't really happen before, it's surely time for it now?

I don't like this but can understand why we have to do it. If insurance premiums become unaffordable, there is no future for UK rugby league as a full time sport.

Then there's no future for it.

Because the version they're proposing here is not Rugby League,

It’s a really worrying time. The game needs to be improved, not watered down and it’s tough to see how we can attract new fans when the games will be littered with penalties. In the first trial game of these rules there were 54 penalties IIRC and the average over the whole trial was in excess of 40 per game. That isn’t the sport I know (and love) and we’ll have to see how much it impacts on people’s enjoyment.

The fans don’t want it and more importantly the players seem to be gutted by the changes and they’re changes I think that potentially make the game more dangerous (for defenders). If somebody told me that in 15/20 years time the sport in the UK is semi professional, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

Nevertheless, the same rule changes will surely come to the NRL too, and they will have to cope with it.

Is this factual or just theoretical?

Are the NRL thinking of bringing the same rules in?

Bear in mind that when it comes to legislating the game out of existence and basically telling the fans, who've had no say, that they'll now have to watch something else, the NRL has more to lose than SL as RL's a vastly bigger game over there with more vested interests.

I'd be genuinely interested to know if they are in the same position as us. If not, of course, that will put serious question-marks against all future internationals, WCCs, all of which are hard enough to organise as it is.

Also, despite asking several times, I've still not heard a coherent explanation as to why the same inevitability is not set to befall boxing, MMA etc. Again, I'd be genuinely interested to know how they are managing to resist when we supposedly can't.

£££

Without this the RFL's insurance premium was shooting up way past what they could afford. I don't know whether the NRL's insurance has also gone up but clearly they will be in a better financial position to consider just paying the increased bill rather than changing the sport.

I'd guess the key reason is boxers and MMA fighters are self employed and responsible for their own welfare