I honestly cannot possibly understand why this is not already in place. It punishes the defending team for making a brilliant play. This has to be a rule change that they should consider. The kickers are given so much protection these days.

It's not negative when it takes defenders out of the line to cover for it. The Lawrence try came from both Wellens and Gardner being in back field watching for a kick that wasn't on the last tackle.

This created space on Gardner's wing where when Gilmour broke Shenton's tackle Saints were caught and scrambled to no effect. If a side is dominant defensively it's a tactic of applying pressure without having to work too hard. It can be boring but does force the side defending into patterns like Saints tried.

I would like to see a rule introduced where any player who makes contact with a scoring player, and who is not genuinely attempting to effect a tackle or prevent a try by legal means heavily punished. It amazes me how many times the knees are used by a defender on a scoring player and nothing is done. Tomkins on Morris in the WCC was the first this season. I've also seen Mathers do it more than once, with Schifcofske getting a nasty one in on King in the recent game at the HJ.

I don't understand why these aren't picked up by match officials or match review panels. A nasty part of the game that can cause injury and IMO needs cleaning up.

I wouldn't agree with any of the rule changes suggested here.

The kick going dead - is fine as it is, as Smokey & Richie (a crimefighting duo if ever there was one!) have pointed out the defence can cover that threat if they wish. Also as already mentioned it removes a tactic from the game.

Chargedowns - it's not a "brilliant" play by the defence to simply get in the way of a kick. All this suggestion would do is make kickers stand further back and reduce the potential for off the cuff powerplays. The defence already get enough of an advantage by a chargedown not being classed as a knock-on.

"tacklers" punished - I sort of agree but it would be very difficult to distinguish between a genuine tackle/try prevention attempt and not. Especially since a lot of try prevention techniques involve the defender attempting to get their legs under the body of the attacker and the ball and so can look like an attempted kick.

I don't think it's hard to distinguish at all. Sliding knees first into a grounded players, or landing on his back when he is grounded are fairly obvious and dangerous pieces of play.

Sinfield's recent effort at Cas was a fine example of a player wrapping up a try scorer without employing anything other than perfectly safe technique.

Well if Saints had taken both wingers and the full back out from the 4th tackle onwards and tried to get the ball quicker and run it back we would have had a much better game. Saints letting it run dead made it dreadfully dull at times.

I do agree that some rule change would be beneficial for the game.

But Sinfields effort was in a different situation to where knees can sometimes hit a player. In Sinfields case there would be no need or opportunity for knees. However if it was the winger attempting to score and the defence/full back coming across they often slide on their knees in an attempt to push a diving winger into touch. Often it doesn't mean the knees actually hit the player but occasionally it does. It would be hard to distinguish in real time what is a legitimate attempt to push players in touch and what is foul play. The same goes for last ditch attempts to get feet/legs unde the ball, and last ditch attempts to tackle a player or hold him up in some way.

It's why stealing the ball over the try line is no longer a penalty try, because it's hard to determine intent.

Obviously there will be times that it's blatant and should be punished (IIRC Brent Webb was penalised for sliding in with the knees in a Grand Final)but I don't think it's a particularly urgent issue.

Of course Sinfield's tackle was different. Sinfiled was effecting a tackle by grabing the player first then wrapping his legs around him to prevent the ball being grounded. He did this in a safe and legal manner. Contrast the Sinfield technique with the one by Scott Moore that got him a one match ban.

How is it hard to distinguish knees being rammed into a grounded player? When has leading with the knees been a legal tackling technique? As an example, Sam Tomkins had no chance of preventing Brett Morris from scoring in the WCC. He wasn't going to be able to put him in touch. Tomkins made no attempt to dislodge the ball by knocking it out of Morris' grasp. Tomkins knew Morris was going to score so he went into Morris with his knees, I can only assume this was to hurt Morris, which he duly did.

This sort of thing happens fairly often and really should be stamped out. The rule to award a penalty try for foul play in the act of scoring should be restored. How odd is it that a penalty try can be awarded by the video ref when a player does not even have the ball in his hands, but nothing is done when a defender can recklessly make contact with a scoring player and suffer no punishment?

Which is something you don't always have the opportunity to do if the winger is diving in at the corner. A defenders best chance to stop this score is to try and push the winger in touch. If the attacker is diving low then the defender needs to get low. 1 way is to slide on his knees. This sometimes, if done clumsily, can lead to knees hitting the player (eg the Brent Webb penalty), it still doesn't mean it wasn't a legitimate attempt to stop a score.

As I said, blatant incidents should be punished but I don't think the issue is as widespread as you seem to think.

The answer is simple. Put the burden of responsibility on the 'tackling' player. Whether a player means to or not doesnt affect the danger the attacker is put in.

If you want to try and push a player in touch, want try and get your legs/feet under the ball, fine. But get it wrong, and you are in trouble.

Rugby league is the best sport to watch as it is and shows alot of skill and is really Fast paced compared to other sports. So why change the rule just because it looks like a bad/boring tatic. Leave it as it is but maybe bring back a less controlled restart on the 20?

What a ridiculous thread this is.

Getting a tap on the 20 is better for a defending team than having to deal with a high bomb and get put down a yard from your line. From that you get tired hard working drives to get out of your 20. At least by tapping on the 20 you have better territory and therefore more inclined to pass more.

What is suggested on this thread, is that if an attacking team is outside the 20 (which is on most occassions unless they have had a penalty in the set of 6), then they will need to just kick the ball into touch somewhere in the 20 but as safe as possible to not risk going dead. Then we have a scrum or hand over at that point instead, which might be only 10 yards from the line rather than 20. Yep I am sure the defending team is happier with that.

Seriously you can't make this rubbish up. What sort of game do you lot want.

Yes.Let's not get broken ribs, damaged kidneys or some such injury before an obvious and easily detectable aspect of foul play is stamped out.

When a player catches the ball on the full inside there own in goal they should have the option to call a "mark", resulting in a 20 metre restart, or to play on. Alot of the time there is broken field to run into when these kicks are taken and it could lead to some very exciting kick returning.

The problem with that is how do you call mark in a way which is clear to the referee and to the opposition. How are you supposed to defend against a runner when you dont know if he has called mark and is running to tap on the twenty or he hasnt called mark and is running in open field?