I'm sure it will get changed for next season.

Every time you kick it dead the opposition should be allowed one shoulder charge

There are a lot of RL people who are proud the game is tough and fast, but sometimes that can lead to calls for good footballing tactics to be driven out. The game needs to be careful about what is stopped or discouraged using rule changes.

Sticking more to the thread topic, as others have pointed out, if a team is being disadvantaged by their opponent kicking the ball dead, they should position players to prevent it. If the defending team does that, the team in possession might see an opportunity to run the ball.

As for 20m restarts, are the controlled ones enforced just to help the match officials? If I recall correctly, currently, you can have a quick restart if a player runs it back from out of play to the 20m line but not if they pass or kick it ahead to a player closer. I prefer to see the quick ones for obvious reasons and because I think it's a good balance to the kick dead tactic.

So why did the defending team not put their full back fully back to field the kicks?
I'm not sure why you seem adamant to want to reward poor defence.

Anyone can tap it and whenever, although players can't get involved until back behind the ball. A long throw to a man on the mark and then a good burst would certainly focus minds.

it is a horrible rule it just encourages unimaginative play. I agree what somebody said before about being inside the 10 or 20 then its fair enough but just to keep whacking it as hard as you can to make it run dead just brings substance to the its "just 5 drives and kick game"

Nah, FBs should just stand in the in goal area to prevent any sort of disadvantage for their team that such a tactic brings.

Because it would be entirely unreasonable to expect them to stop it going over the in-goal in the examples that I cited. They would have to be stood in the in-goal area to stop it and that is just not happening when the oppo is kicking from their own half.

If they were particularly bothered about the opposition kicking dead, then they would defend it.

It's a hell of a kick that can go from a players own half, to go dead in the opposition half after bouncing, and be impossible to field unless the defender is already waiting in his in goal area. In all these years, I don't think I've seen a kick that good.

I have got to agree that it is a poor spectacle when a team takes the pace of the game by kicking dead, but I do belive we need to look into slight changes in the way we play. There is very little competition for posession in the game now & play is becoming totaly predictable as players are not challenged mentaly. I would go further than penalising a team for kicking the ball dead I would also penalise a player knocking the ball dead in goal. I want the rules to clearly state that a player must endevour to keep the ball in the field of play & make all efforts to carry the ball out of the in goal area & remain on his feet. We actualy penalise good tackles now, the tackle around the legs is is the safest tackle but we have to go high now to allow our team mates to get back as the player brought down is allowed to dive to the floor jump back to his feet & roll the ball without playing it correctly, all in the name of speeding up the game, we even stoped the markers striking for the ball or the tacklers stripping but have stoped penalising incorrect play the ball moving forward of the mark & voulantry tackles. We insist the defenders get back 10 meters but stoped making the attacking side retreat 5 meters behind the play the ball as used to happen. The other old interpritation that has gone is that players in front of the kicker used to have to stand still untill the kicker put them on side or the attacker got to them not run up & stay 10 meters away as is now the case. I would like to see more challenges for posession reward good play & penalise lazy or negative play.

It's only as 'slow' a restart as your own team makes it. If your players make an effort to get back behind the twenty, your team can then play on. I don't see the problem really, as if you put it over the side line it's no quicker a restart yet that wouldn't be deemed a 'negative' play.

This.

If you don't want your team to have to turn around and run back behind the 20m line, stop the ball from going out!

Exactly it's a tactic of the game, some sides will deliberately target a winger with kicks or use short kicks to keep the ball in play or tire a particular player or whole team. best example of this was grand final 2004 when leeds kicked big les out off the game.. Some use the tactic to save energy knowing, they can defend a good set. Leave it alone its fine.
It's a valid tactic, plus it would stop sides attempting good grubbers in goal which often leads to a dry,drop out, or sometimes just runs dead.

i think its amusing that a saints fan is complaining about it, after getting beaten by a side using it.

Widnes did it to warrington, and hull did it both times they beat us this year, we didn't complain about it.

we also had to endure some saints fans crying about us having the audacity to use a drop goal and how briers was a boring for doing it as we were walking back to the car. the butt hurt was strong, and not a shred of humility about the amount of times long or goulding did it to us, it was ok when they were beating us.

However, rules is rules, sometimes teams click on a method to win and it works and its up to the other teams to try and combat having big off wingers (bradford), running like from dummy half(sintellins),the obstruct like and give it to Sam (wiggin) or passing the ball forwards(leeds).

If the defending team had "no chance" to stop kicks that benefited the attacking team then they weren't poor kicks were they?