This will change the way the game is played more than the 10m rule. There will be a lot of unintended consequences and it won't ever completely remove the risk. It will take some seasons for it to "bed in" while players, referees and coaches get used to it.

Some foreseeable effects will be the obvious increase in penalties to begin with. More players ducking to "milk" penalties. Lots of red cards for "instinctive" high tackles. Lots of injury and concussion for players trying and failing to get in the right body position to effect a lower tackle. Lots of players running in with knees up or shoulder charging the defender. Lots of frustration all round.

Longer term as players get used to it I can see a lot more offloading. I can also see smaller players becoming more common as there's less of a need to have huge bulk.

Hopefully it will make the game safer to play but it's not guaranteed - it could even make it more dangerous to begin with. Who'd be a referee?

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... google.com Thoughts? Maybe RS is ahead of his time?

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... google.com Thoughts? Maybe RS is ahead of his time?

But the use hasn't, until now, been encouraged by a change to the laws. So, thoughts?

I think it rewards mediocrity. The less skillful players can now try a short kick off without any real jeopardy. This is in total contrast to killing the most skilful kickers in the game who could put a kick off to within a yard or so of the dead ball line, only for the goons at the RFL to allow a defender to catch the ball and stick his leg out of play to gain a penalty from a perfectly judged kick.

Why does a player going for a short kick off make them less skillful? Surely its harder for a player to get the correct distance and height on a kick to make it contestable at a shorter distance, rather than just kicking it down field to an opposition player.

What I was referring to was the supposed “penalty” for the ball not travelling 10 yards or being kicked straight into touch from a short kick off. In each case the attacking team is “penalised” by a play the ball given to the opposition 10 yards beyond where the kick was taken. Not much of a chance to take really, the real jeopardy was when it went wrong and the opposition could belt the resulting penalty beyond the 25 yard line and then have 6 tackles, or have a kick at goal. Better, more skillful kickers thrive under the existing rules by virtue of the fact the penalty for an illegal kick off is harsh, so a kick that travels the 10 yards and stays in play is fair reward for the risk. Any chancer or sub standard kicker that isn’t good enough to make a legal kick off ( I.e it goes straight out of play or doesn’t travel 10 yards) will carry on making crap attempts because the deterrent isn’t there any more. It’s a case of fancying around with the rules, rewarding crap illegal kick offs and turning the game more like Rugby Yawnion.

To clarify on this new ruling, what happens if the ball does not go 10m or goes straight into touch without bouncing? The attacking team get a set 10m from the try line? Previously, it was a penalty? I struggled to understand it when it was announced.

So first round of cards for high shots and I’m not impressed.

It’s all way too arbitrary and inconsistent. The punishment is not fitting the crime IMO.

We’re giving referees an almost impossible job to do.

We need to think again about the type of tackle which is dangerous (e.g. head and neck being driven into the ground) versus risky where there might be some head contact in an upright tackle (I’m thinking the Harry Smith tackle v the Watts/Westerman).

We also need to use the match review panel more, I agree with RS. Decisions made in games are often controversial at best and slowing things down way too much.

We already have clear guidelines for dismissal for foul play. What we don’t want to have is this silly situation where our top players are at risk for bans constantly when big matches are round the corner.

We just need a better application of common sense. I get that it’s difficult.

So the application of the new rules have been inconsistent to say the least and it will be interesting to see what the disciplinary review panel come up with in terms of sanctions. I can only comment on the ones I have seen but hers my view.
Momorovski sin bin just a pen as player ran into him.
Salford hooker sin bin complete joke not even a pen.
Brierley although instinctive and no intent would have benn a red under new rules if he was a player with a rep ie BentleyWatts etc
Pele clear red card pure stupid.
Lao can see qhy given but fwlt harsh.
Micky Mac stupid not needed and a red under new rules.
Liam Watts very harsh as no intent and must wonder if his name is on a card ever time he plays!
Harry Smith struggle to understand how thats deemed to be accidental other than hes a current England International and different rules apply!
Didnt see the Leigh game but apparently that was quite feisty

The Salford hooker sinbin was perfectly fine, it was for repeat offences of laying in the ruck.

Nene should have been sinbinned for a professional foul aswell, surprised that wasn’t picked up.

I'm with lingard on the watts one, how do you coach your players to avoid that, ball carrier goes low leading head first. Very soft red for me.

It wasn't as bad as I was expecting. Most of the red cards were given to players who have always struggled to keep their discipline, and I don't have an issue with any of the really. The Watts red is debatable, but I can see why it was given.
With regards to Bourouh's sin binning, I thought was given due Salford giving away several penalties in a short period of time rather than the offence itself.

That was my interpretation.