It's not possible to do that, it's kicked so hard and so direct there is very little chance of stopping it. Hoofing it dead so often is a negative tactic and it was used utterly brilliantly by Huddersfield. It is however a completely negative tactic and is pretty horrible to watch it happen repeatedly.

They don't have to do anything drastic, but change it so that if it's kicked dead from inside the 20 the rules don't change so as to not penalise attacking kicks, but if it's kicked dead from outside the 20 then the restart is on the 40 yard line, not the 20. It negates the negative tactics but doesn't discourage attacking kicks.

I agree, its a negative tactic that needs a rule change, I like your idea and its simple to implement.

It is possible, after all the ball has to hit the ground before going out.

It would be a disaster, almost completely ending the idea of passing whilst running forwards.

What's the difference between that and kicking to touch?

Alright Captain Pedantic, it is technically possible. But how many times do we ever see a fullback actually get near a kick like that? They aren't intended to be caught, they are hammered over the line. There is no skill involved and it's incredibly boring to watch, far less attractive even than watching Union players kicking the ball back and to all day.

Maybe the Fullback would need to stand further back to field said kick. Maybe he would need to have his wingers drop back to cover a larger portion of the field and this would free up space for the team in possession to attack the line.

It is as negative a tactic for the defensive team to allow the ball to be kicked out as it is for the attacking team to kick it out.

Maybe we should look at it the complete opposite way and should the attacking team kick the ball out of their own forty, and the ball bouncing behind the twenty metre line before going touch in goal results in a scrum on the 20metre mark with head and feed to the kicking team. Force defending sides to cover that play and free up some space in the defensive line.

Another kick rule id like to see changed is when the ball is kicked into touch within 10m of the opposition line the scrum should be set where the ball left the field, not the 10 m line.

As Smokey says, the defence should choose to cover it. Instead they choose to cover a different threat, and seem happy to take 20 metre taps.

As well as agreeing with this point, something that worries me about rule changes like this is that it would remove a way for an inferior team to compete with fitter teams. I prefer a game where there is a balance that requires skills and tactics to win, as well as stamina. When teams from different divisions play in the Challenge Cup or Wales play Australia in the Four Nations this year, I'd like there to be ways to even the contest a little.

This change might not make much difference as teams that wanted to use this kind of tactic could switch to kicking the ball into touch.

What's the difference between a tactic and a negative tactic?

Charge downs shouldn't restart the tackle count.

Why ever not?

I predict this would be a good change. This is why I support it:

Kicks are made by attackers in most sets of tackles. Often, the kicker faces no contest as they kick because it is rarely in a defender’s interest to charge it down. A charge down attempt might leave gaps in the defensive line. If a defender reaches the kicker and charges the ball down, they need to gain possession of the ball otherwise the attacking team will have another set of tackles to use.

In the past, before limited tackles were introduced, if a player charged down the ball but was unable to take possession of it, the other team did not receive six uncontested play-the-balls as a team today will.

The charge down is already an exceptional rule in that it is not considered a deliberate knock on (penalty). This change would merely add a further exception. The change would encourage good defence and vary play.