The last one you could only have that way if within the opposition's 20 - you'd want to reward good defence elsewhere?

Whilst RL has shown a willingness to tinker with rules to make things flow better, from an entertainment perspective we might be nearing the point where more fundamental changes are needed. The only other tinkering changes that might have a real impact would be further reductions in interchanges.

There are always unintended consequences, but there are some other radical changes I'd like smarter people than me to look at - how about disabling the wrestle by not letting more than 2 players get involved in a tackle for example?

To me the entertainment angle of RL is simply less than it was (that's no the same as 'better' in terms of which teams from which era would win). There should be no universe where defending teams are happy to give away penalties in their own 20m because they are confident of defending it. The balance between attack and defence is completely wrong if that's the case (excluding Leeds of course!)

The better first start would be to re-eductate referrees in the rules of the game, instead of incorrect interpretations. They don't work to the rules at all, and the game has been completely ruined as a result.

The biggest start they could make over all, and they did it in the NRL is make them play the bloody ball properly. Literally nobody in our competition anymore actually play the ball at all. In a hell of a lot of cases, they don't even mimick the foot movement, but just simply roll it backwards. This is unacceptable, and part of the reason so much wrestling goes on at the play the ball.

To be honest I think the lack of entertainment, if it exists, would be down do the lack of real quality players than anything else.

Reducing interchanges might be beneficial on a number of levels.

I think it's important not to over-complicate rules, or introduce too much interpretation to referees who are already struggling it seems to me. For example, if a defending team is loading more than two players into a tackle, it's up to the attacking team to play quickly at the edges and keep them honest IMO.
The ruck is a mess though - but that's not a new thing.

:1kc5iqo9

Completely agree with this, no more "interpretations" or pre-season rule negotiations with clubs and coaches, let's just play to the rules10. The play-the-ball shall operate as follows.

Release tackled player immediately (a) The tackled player shall be immediately released and shall not be touched until the ball is in play.

Regain feet (b) The tackled player shall without delay regain his feet where he was tackled, lift the ball clear of the ground, face his opponent’s goal line and drop or place the ball on the ground in front of his foremost foot.

Player marking (c) One opponent may take up the position immediately opposite the tackled player.

(d) The tackled player may not play the ball before the players effecting the tackle have had time to clear the ruck.

Play with foot (e) When the ball touches the ground it must be heeled (i.e. backwards) by the tackled player. The ball must not be kicked or heeled by the player marking him. The ball is in play when it has been played backward.



With regards to (d) it really annoys me to see a defender knelt just pushing down on a tackled player while looking at the referee waiting to be told to release the attacker.

Looks like Golding playing second hooker this week.

Johnson, Trout, Mcclelland all playing for Fev in midweek cup match. So all overlooked again. Interestingly Albert also on dual reg.

Which is easier said than done. We can align all the rules easily but what happens when the NRL want to change a rule?

The game creates an international committee that agrees the rules. It's nothing new

And what if the NRL doesn’t agree with the formation of an international committee to set its rules?

There’s no such thing as “The Game”. There’s the NRL, The RFL and that’s about it. There isn’t the diversity of power in the game like in football for a FIFA or UEFA style body with enough power to override the objections of one side.

If the NRL doesn’t agree to it it doesn’t happen.

I’ve said this before but I wouldn’t be opposed to the NRL taking over the game over here. Their resources far outstrips the RFL, we would have a unified rule set, judiciary process etc. It doesn’t need to be us v them (aside from on the field).

I'm with Gotcha... again. The officials have to start applying the rules. As it stands the only players that try to play the ball end up playing it forward by accident and getting penalised. Probably why they roll it with their hand. Seeing as refs are currently letting them get away with it. Also whilst after a break when 2 on 1 against the full back I've seen a lot of final passes that have been forwards and not getting pulled back. I don't know if this is due to the officials not keeping up with play or just the BS momentum rule.

If you're talking rule changes, please get rid of the attackers not onside having to give the catcher 10 metres, because it lets people off with spilling the ball, because of a player that was nowhere near them.

100% this.

Its not actual rule changes that have done the damage, but the never ending changing "interpretations" aka ill thought-out tinkering. The leaders of the game should establish the set of rules they want and implement them regardless of the short term input of clubs and coaches.