Simple. Any ball diffused by a defender in the in goal, that was put there by the attacking team results in a 20m tap. If a defender takes the ball in goal himself it would be a dropout as usual
Those kicks would have to be positioned further out by the kicker and we'd see less of these tries imo

That was aimed at GSF's point

1. Split the field into three parts from end to end so that if you score a try in the two side parts, the kick for goal is worth 3 points and if it's in the middle part it's worth 2 points.
These parts would not be equal either, 5 metres in from both touchlines after that it's the middle part.

2. Do away with this dragging into touch rule it's rubbish

3. If tackled behind your own line 1 point to other team then a dropout, similar to a safety in NFL BUT only if the ball was received in field first, so if you receive the ball and you were already in goal when this happens it's just a straight drop out.

4. When awarded a penalty, given 3 options, a) take 10 b)kick for touch c) extra tackle in the count (7 tackles then a hand over)

5. Bigger scrums (8 man) to give the backs more room in the 1st tackle

6. 3 infringement automatic sin bin: every time a player has commited a 3rd infringement even if they have all been for different things he takes 10 mins in the bin. he come out and it's reset to 0.

7. Leniency on 1 on 1 BIFF, 2 on 1 or any other numbers and they are reffered to the RFL panel. the two 1 on 1 biffers get FIVE mins in the bin NOT ten when they have finished

The first knock on.Why should a team be given the feed at a scrum when their player has knocked on?When a player drops the ball the opposition has a choice.Leave the ball on the ground where it is and take the feed at the scrum OR,make an attempt to retrieve the ball but if fumbling in the process then concede the scrum.Don't understand why we go back to the first knock on if the other team has failed in an attempt to continue play.

Because you're playing advantage. If no advantage accrues, you go back to the original offence.


These threads invariably convince me that at least half of fans have no real idea about the game they're watching - a classic example is the post above to go back to 8 man scrums (ie reintroduce flankers). One of the defining rule changes that made rugby league rugby league rather than financially honest rugby union was getting rid of the flankers and reducing the scrum to six - rebalancing a team to six forwards and seven backs (ie more backs than forwards) - in 1907. 103 years later somone wants to change that to 8 forwards and five backs, including halves, meaning tams have far, far more forwards on the pitch than backs. Open running rugby? No thanks - we want lots of forwards running into each other :ROLL:

because we play the advantage, if the defending team get one, we allow them to play on, if we dont we restart.

you also have to remember at the point of the players making the decision of whether to pick it up or leave it, the referee hasnt actually signalled a knock on. Your idea would leave us with situations where players left the ball believing there to have been a knock on, the referee judging there wasnt and a the opposition running in under the posts

Get the penalty try out of the rulebook. They're awarded less often than Steve Rider's seen in the South Stand at Headingley, and it would be one less thing for Sky's Mutt and Jeff to witter on about.

Agree with the first and to some extent the third (but I think slight pressure should be fine as long as it's clearly not a bounce ball). However strongly disagree with your focus on the second point. It's one major coup we have over RU and reflects the ethos of our game to reward positive open rugby. In RU I have seen on many occasions (including the last WC Final no less) refs saying to the Video Ref "Can you find a reason why I shouldn't give a try". That hardly inspires players to get over the line does it?

The way I see it is that once a player has got over your line they have earned the benefit of any proceeding doubt - or perhaps more appropriately the defending team has lost it by allowing the line to be breached. From here on in, as it is clear the hard bit (i.e. getting over the line) has been done the ref should assume that the (comparatively) easy business of landing on the ground with the ball (i.e. grounding) should take care of itself in the event the that ref (and Video Ref) are unsighted. I agree with your point that the defence deserves to be awarded for stopping a try but I think that reward should be conditional on not allowing the line to be breached. In such an event the defending team must be able to show they have held the ball up because the odds on such an event are slimmer and the ref's assumption should reflect this.

I would however advocate a refs call as this would put the final decision in the hands of the person who first declared the doubt to be in evidence. That way a scenario where a ref is pretty sure a try was NOT scored but is unsure how the restart the game finds a try given by the VR because the VR could not see properly and so gave benefit of the doubt. But it would be a very retrograde step to deny tries simply because of poor positioning from officials and in some cases TV cameras.

But that's exactly the way the VR works in RL - not just the "TMO" in RU wasn't[/i grounded). And it's the right way to do it - as you say later in your post. You seem to be arguing to change it to the way it is, because you misunderstand the way it actually is - imo of course.

Video ref to be limited to one slo mo from each angle and susbsequently one freeze frame from chosen angle. If he can't decide from that then try or ideally ref call. I don't understand how a video ref can watch the same replay umpteen times and have no doubt.

Double movements to be assessed in real time.

I'd also get rid of ball stripping one on one, i think it complicates decisions for the referee and leads to confusion.

I'm not sure about your first point,but I whole heartidly agree with you concerning the playoffs,8 is 2 too many for me.

No that's not what I meant all. Maybe a bad example. In RU the assumption is that a try has NOT been scored. It has to be proved that it was all ok. The reason I quoted that sentence was to show that even though the ref could find no reason to disallow the try he still wanted the 'TMO' to have a look. In essence what they are trying to do is find a reason not to give tries (something becoming more evident in the NRL, I'm afraid to say). RL has it right that the ref only refers when there is a specific area(s) of play to look at that might indicate a legitimate try was not scored - rather than just handing it over willy-nilly. As I said before the key thing is that the player got over the line with the ball, from this point on the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side. Sorry if the RU example confused that point. I find that RU is particularly adept at making the simple things overcomplex!