I do understand that it's a trial. I don't have a problem with trying out improvements to the game.

However, in my opinion, it must be done with the consensus of all the other full members of the RLIF rather than one country's governing body trialling the new rules without the agreement of the other countries.

If this trial is "successful" I presume that the UK will implement the changes regardless of what any of the other full members of the RLIF think. If so, we will end up with 3 versions (to my knowledge) of the rules of RL (the UK version, the Australian version, & the International rules).

Kicking the ball dead from inside your own half - where the ball is kicked dead or touch in goal from inside the kicker’s own half, play will be restarted with a handover at the centre of the 40m line nearest to the non-kicking team’s goal line.

This rule doesn't award kicks that might be great and go into the in goal, and then only just roll off the pitch. It also doesn't award 40/20 attempts that might take a wrong bounce. They are trying to punish clearing kicks but at the same time might put off kickers.

Charge down - charging down the ball does not restart the tackle count. If the kicking team regains possession the tackle count will continue as before. The charge down will still not count as a knock on.

Warrington try quite a lot on kick pressure and charge downs, but the risk/reward a lot of the time isn't there. I agree with this rule.

Attacking team option to reduce numbers in scrum - where a team is awarded a scrum, the feeding team has the option of only putting five men in the scrum giving them eight “backs” to attack with.

We might possibly see some contested scrums as it would be tempting to push against only 5 men.

One rule I'd like to see is that you can't simply bomb kick from say 30 or more metres out and chase, if you can't get near the opponents line you don't deserve to just hit and hope like that.

An accurate, steep bomb is probably the hardest thing to do in our game, there's nothing 'hit and hope' about it.

The 40m tap is a definite no for me. The defending team already get a 20m advantage, if they want to defend those kicks they can do, they choose not to.

The charge down is a no from me aswell. The defending team already get the benefit of the chargedown not being a knock-on, I don't see why a deliberate play at the ball shouldn't result in another set of 6 for whoever gains possession.

The scrum thing im unsure but I'd like to see trialled, it could open up scrums a bit with either the attack having an extra man or the defending scrum putting on a push. But then teams like Wigan seem to have no problem attacking from scrums as it is.

Hey, at least they're not trying out the NRL All Stars "Power Play" rule...

I would like to see any change that could.lessen the use of kicks in.the final third.

Whats made it worse on the high kicks is the batting back of the ball in this situation.

I think i would eliminate that style of challenge in the air where there is a deliberate attempt to strike the ball away not challenge for it - on both sides.

Id also limit repeat sets to two dropouts and maybe eventually to one.

I suppose the "chargedown" rule is an attempt to see more teams trying to attack the kicker on the 4th and 5th tackles. Might as well go for it, knowing if you fail they only get one more attempt or it gets handed over anyway. All that WILL happen though is the kicker will drop a bit further back for his kick.

I think there's merit in the scrum rule. Too many teams just trundle a second row up at first receiver which doesn't entertain anyone. An extra attacker would see more enterprise.

The 40m tap is harsh. There would be an inch between what is the best kick in the world and a kick being severely detrimental to your own side. Kickers would pull kicks up short from their own half which would result in the fullback taking the ball with ease and making it back to around the 40m line anyway.

A charge down is an optional risk and I feel the rule is fine as it stands. You aren't forced to charge down and people know the 'extra set' rule before they go for it. No need to change this.

Looking forward to seeing how they work anyway.

Happened at Leeds today. Paul McShane put in a lovely kick from just inside the own half that split the winger and full back, but took two big hops forward and rolled dead.

Wakefield got an extra 20m ground out of a kick being a couple of yards too heavy. If he had belted it straight down the full back's throat, he would probably have been tackled around the 30m mark.

imo the new charge down rule is aimed at defenders actually trying to attack the ball rather than attacking the kicker, as such giving the kicker better protection and also allowing for a dummy kick and run. which can only be a good thing.

Also, there was an incident when a Rhinos kick on the last tackle came of the Wakefield players leg and went into touch, which was a scrum feed to Leeds (just as it would have been last season), had the ball bounced back into a Leeds players hands it would still have been the last tackle, but Leeds gained a scrum on the Wakefield "40".

FWIW, although there will be moments when the ball trickles "dead", it looks like a positive rule change and will prevent the hpoefull "hoof" upfield.

Don't really like the idea of any of them. You very really see teams hoofing it completely dead on purpose. OK some trickle dead when the oppositions tries a clearing kick, but that's part of the game. 40m is too much IMO. What's the difference between someone kicking it out dead from a clearing kick and someone deliberately kicking it into touch?

Aimless kicks to the corner resulting in a try is probably the worse way to score a try IMO

Aimless kicks to the corner resulting in a try is probably the worse way to score a try IMO, no skill.