By reducing to 12 players, it will be a little more ad-lib which will help England get closer to the 'Roos. Get rid of the loose-forward. Also call the hooker, number nine, as he/she doesn't hook the ball anylonger, and hasn't done for yrs as you know. I'd say only have 3 on the bench too, 8 interchanges, got to make the aerobic capacity more important, spending too much time in the gym and not enough on the field with the ball or jogging on pavements.

Also ensure commentators call them decoy runners and not dummy runners, and use the phrase acting-halfback instead of dummy-half. These are things we can conrtol, we can't control the culture of Europe and what governments give money too and what parents decide which sports their children do, but we can tweak our game to help it in the right direction.

And obviously making it safer for children to play by having more tag rugby, concentrating on skills, and punishing professional plyrs, drastically, for foul play.

No need to reduce it to 12. That doesn't help anyone and just confuses matters.
Also the last thing we need is to be turning players fitter and fitter and turning them into running machines. We need more variety amongst players not less.
Who would you rather watch? Ali Lauitiiti or Chris Clarkson?

I'd re-introduce competitive scrums.

As for youngsters, the safety aspect isn't that bad in RL. The ridiculously competitive, intimidating and often abusive atmosphere that youngsters play in is the problem.

Just off the top of my head I can think of 3 of our players who have been turned away from amateur clubs. One was told he was too small, one wasn't being played because he wasn't very good and one was told to go to a "lesser" club.
All of them are under the age of 11.

Sort that crap out and we'd get a lot more kids and adults playing the game which leads to higher attendances at pro games.

swap the scrum for the lineout.

If the lineout wasnt an RU thing i think it would be in place already.

I'm not convinced as it encourages long kicking to go out of play.

I don't mind a line-out but no, I wouldn't vote for it.

Confuses matters? How? It's not that confusing. If we do it we need to do it now, before American RL sorts itself out. We've bn 13-a-side for well over 100 yrs now, plyrs are obv. fitter and bigger, I think it'll help players like Burrow, P McShane, Isaac Luke and R Chase.

NQ Cowboys nilled NZ Warriors for 18 minutes of 9-a-side 2 wks ago. So it would still be possible to nil someone for 40 minutes with 12 defenders I reckon.

This will help the Warriors in the NRL too, and Fiji in the WC.

Totally disagree, I think the lineout just encourages the tedious kickfest that is Union.

I'm more than happy with the 40/20 as a power play and the long kicks that sacrifice possession.

RL doesn't need to increase the need for aerobic capacity! Have you ever played? It's the most lung-busting sport you can imagine. In fact, it's one of the downsides, in that it's very very hard to play as a veteran (Union clubs in fact do really well out of the old-timers than can still cope with a veterans game - these are the guys that are a bit older and have a bit of money.)

Leave it be.

the lineout is just a contest to restart play, but just a better spectacle than a scrum

I thought this was going to be about Catalans players being sent off

Agree about it's a better spectacle, I'd just be wary of RL eventually having those ridiculously tall second rowers that Union has specifically for the line out and who are generally useless at the other aspects of playing rugby.

Though I understand the counter to that of having useless overweight props. I think the lack of flankers would mitigate this to an extent though, they'd still need to be relatively mobile.

I do think the game could benefit from another element to it though, rather than just who plays the ball and moves fastest. Which is sometimes great to watch, and is highly valued by some people, but I think it leads to one team getting on top and dominating too much, leading to blow out scores.

I've come full circle on this, I used to argue against the re-introduction of scrums, but now I think people want to watch close games, and we've gone a bit too far down the route of giving the "dominant" team advantages.

Unfortunately the Aussies seem intent on going down a much simpler, more 1-dimensional route.

I DO NOT believe it!

Stick to your Leeds Carnegie RU or whatever it is

That's the last time I'll even read SmokeyTA - never mind take any notice !

i think we would avoid going the route of ridiculously tall 2nd rowers just because of the rest of the game. I don’t think you could carry someone who wasn’t pulling their weight offensively and defensively just because they had an extra few inches for the line-out

like it or hate, we can do nothing to change as a result of what one poster has stated..
"Unfortunately the Aussies seem intent on going down a much simpler, more 1-dimensional route."

Have played, was a fitness instructor and studied sports science, the playrs could do with less weight training, and the sport cud do with a bit more space on the park, atm the Roos have it as it suits going through the processes, getting into the grind, which obv. suits the Aussies, it doesn't suit England. The rules need changing to help England. There needs to be more ad-lib football in the game. I've just watched some of the England v Aus match in Cardiff, and Cam Smith could have plyd for another hour, a few of the Aussies cud have, they were defending so easily towards the end of the 2nd half.