The new rules in Australia has created a dilemma for rugby in England. For years we have been proud that rugby league is more open than union with the ball in play for perhaps 60-70% of the game compared to 25% in union. But now in Australia it is nearer 90% with very few scrums or penalties and a very open game. The questions are, how do we play international games in the future,do we adopt the new rules and are they good for the future welfare of the players.
No doubt the game in Australia will slow down as players and refs will get used to the rules, however in England powers that be must respond quickly to these changes.
George Walker

Weve played with different rules for years now which is just crazy.

If im honest i find the NRL too quick and boring. All the rule changes to make the game quicker makes the game more negative to me. Why play rugby when you can just roll downfield with ease. Every set of 6 in the NRL is the same 3 drives one off the ruck, a shift play on the 4th and drive on the 5th and kick on the last.

The last 2 weeks of the NRL have been anything but this.

I agree with the Ghost. These new changes have opened the game up. You can see defenses getting tired and that opens the game up for offload and more attack. I love it and hope it's introduced here

anything to break up the tedious 'arm wrestle' we used to get is good for me. i have watched a couple of games since the NRL resumption and find the changes very positive indeed and it has opened it up for the smaller unpredictable and silky players again to shine with a bit more space.

If they want to "open up" league for more skillful players then one thing they could do is revisit what is classed as a high tackle. I wouldn't go as far as Union (virtually 50% of all league tackles would result in a red card under those rules), but it's very difficult to offload when three guys hit you in the face and around the shoulders. It might also reduce the concussion rate in the NRL.

Did you see a programme Shane William's did about concussion? There was an expert that said that by lowering the tackle zone, the chance of head injuries is greatly reduced

Unfortunately I know quite a lot about it, TBI is one of the research areas we work in. We did have talks with the NFL a few years ago but they decided on a different path. I also have a 17 yo who plays (Union). In Union I think the problem is now reversed, they have to tackle so low now that it's the tacklers who are being concussed. They also have a lot of head injuries in rucks where players cleaning out are getting lower and lower and leading with their heads and defenders are encouraged to jackel right over the ball with head and neck practically on the ground and exposed. I haven't seen anyone carrying the ball concussed in a long time in Union (which is good). My son has had a couple over the last 4-5 years and all were from getting his head too low in the tackle and one nasty neck injury from being "cleaned out" off the ball when he wasn't expecting it. However, that's all preferable to high tackles.

The NFL's problem is helmets. That's not going away.

Watched 30 mins of Cowboys v Warriors and im bored to tears.

Yeah so poor to watch, despite everyone waxing lyrical about the NRl.....

I just watched roosters v eels. That was some game. Boring it was not!

First half was dire. One man driveathon. 2nd half picked up. Trent Robinsons teams are always worth watching tho. Best coach going.

If you thought that was dire God knows what you must think about the average Super League game.

Marty is must be waking up on wrong side of bed each day he seems to sulk about more things than Sam Tomkins

Just confirm JR you genuinely believe Luke Thompson is better than James Graham was at 25???