1. I'd welcome this as a trial, if successful it would improve the game as a spectacle and introduce another reason to retain scrubs as a unique element of the game.

2. As a coach, I tell my players not to attempt a charge down as it results in a restart of the tackle count 8 times out of 10, put pressure on the kicker by all means but in an attempt to tackle him not block the ball.

3. Possibly another good move and should help reduce the number of times the ball is kicked dead on purpose. The defending team should reap a reward for containing the attack and a 20 metre restart into the teeth of a set defence does seem a little punitive whilest it rewards the attacking team for a relatively low skill act. It might have the effect of improving a players kicking game as well.

Id agree with not resetting the tackle count after a charge down.

I’ve said before, id like to see what the game looked like with the line-out replacing the scrum.

Id also like to see a removal of the wrestling and slowing down of the PTB, though i understand the opposition some people have to the 'scoot' personally i think defence would have evolved to remove it anyway but the game has gone backwards from that. An easy way to rectify it would be to remove the wrestle and speed up the PTB, but remove the necessity for the markers to stand square.

I disagree completely with not re-starting the tackle count from a charge-down.

It's the same principle as making a deliberate attempt to intercept a pass, so for me it would be too inconsistent to re-start the count for one and not the other.

As regards a 6v5 scrum, the final scores in SL are already way too high without making it even easier to get tries.

I'm all for the right rule changes, but not these. Reasons being:

1. Aside from the feed, the same rules should apply to attack and defence.

2. There is enough distortion already, with not applying the knock on rule.

3. Really don't like this. The onus should be on the defending team to get the ball and run it back. This just encourages them to wait and let a ball run dead.

I agree completely with this.

It would actually make it more attractive to allow it run dead than to run it back.

No harm in trying them out, if we weren't prepared to experiment a bit we'd still be playing union.

Rule #1 I wouldn't mind seeing trialled, it might open things up a bit with either an extra attacking player or a possible defensive push in the scrum. But rules 2 & 3 are a definite no from me. If you deliberately play at the ball it should be another set of 6, the player charging the ball down already has the benefit of it not being a knock-on anyway. As for the 40m tap, nah. The defending team already get a 20m advantage, if they want to they can defend this type of kick, they choose not to.

I agree. I'm critical of my team not attacking more from scrums but watching others, especially Wigan, they already excel at set plays from scrums as it is.

1. I'm agree with the intent, but I don't see this as the solution. I'd rather see the defensive line at the scrum be taken back 15 metres from the loose-forward, to provide a lot more space for the attacking backs to work in.

2. I think I broadly agree with this. There should be more reward for putting pressure on the kicker. It seems right to me that if a defender manages to get to the kicker before he gets a kick in, and charges down the kick, then he shouldn't be penalised for that endeavour by having the tackle count restarted if he doesn't gather the ball.

3. Again, I sort of see the rationale, and I think the arguments against it have already been put above. I want wingers/centres to have an incentive to take the ball and run it back, rather than let it roll over the line. However, having said that, I think that already wingers/fullbacks would rather see the ball run dead for a 20-metre restart than run it back. The kicking side is content to re-start 80-metres from their own line, and the defending side is content to gain certain possession on their 20 metre line rather than risk running it back and not making 20 metres. As a result, we are in a position where teams stuck in their own half will just punt the ball down the field, happy for it to go dead, while the defenders are effectuvely penalised for a good defensive set which kept their opponents in their own half, by having to concede another 30 metres before getting the ball. So on reflection, I think I like it. There'll be a huge incentive for kickers to avoid putting the ball blindly dead when their team is under pressure. Either making them look again at the more exacting skill of a 40-20, or practising a more skilful kick of keeping the ball in play. Combine that with a greater incentive to charge the kick (rule 2) and you are making it much harder for teams to simply boot their way out of trouble when their forwards can't make progress.

Let's see how it works. I would have no real objection if 2&3 were adopted.

I agree with the chargedown. Why should you be penalised for putting your body on the line.

Because you've played at the ball, you get a benefit of there being no knock-on. What's the difference between a charge down of a kick and knocking down a pass?

More chance of being killed according to Mr Taggart with a ball in the face.

If you're stupid enough to charge the ball down with your face instead of your hands or arms then you get everything you deserve.

Why are we trying to hammer a team that has made a mistake and dropped the ball-Its not a penalty. Maybe we should tie the defensive scrummagers together with thick rope and only release them 10 minutes later whilst also sellotaping the scrum half to the right post upright with a chicken on his head. All scorers must then tickle his balls when celebrating the score.

How would you enforce your idea 0-10 metres out? Make the defenders stand on the dead in goal line?

Why do we need more scores most true RL traditionalist would tell you its gone like Basketball as it is