Presumably the same gesture as for wiping the tackle count clean.

3 seems reasonable enough.

I'm not that keen on 2. At the moment the punishment for holding down at the ruck makes it really important to tow the line (not that everybody does). Under these proposed rules, if a team had their opposition camped in their own 20, they may be more inclined to try it on a bit if all that's at stake is defending a couple of extra tackles. Their opposition won't be able to do anything with the extra tackles anyway, if they're being held down at the play the ball. Similarly, after your opponents have made a half break it would make sense to just hold them down and face a full set with an organised defensive line.

1 is the most stupid idea I've ever heard.

1. stupid idea

2. Not a bad idea really but still think the system we currently have in place is better

3. Dont agree with this seems to punish the defensive efforts of a team, if you are able to restrict your opponents to 20 meters they shouldnt be able to put in a 50m kick and gain an advantage IMO.

2. Ruck infringements which do not halt the play (eg holding down) will not be a penalty, but instead, an immediate wiping of the tackle count

I would count holding down as being something that halts play so may still be a penalty rather than the tackle count restarting

I agree
1. absolute no go. Will delay play and is taking something from the integrity of the game
2. Ok, but hard to police.
3. As you say it rewards the big hail Mary kick when under pressure. And hard to police. Ref only needs to watch at 40, now needs to watch at 20....and why not a 30 30 if we are changing.

Just leave as is.

I think a 10/50 is the future!

I see a future rule of 0/0, which is an automatic try.

Number 2 was suggested by a fella on here a few years ago and was a brilliant idea in the way that he put it accross.

I don't like rule 3 at all.

Reward a team for their defensive efforts in pinning down an opposition instead of offering the attackers an escape route.

the wipe the tackle count is silly. for example you make a break the defensive team is trotting back as a tackler all you have to do is lay on the man for a min till all your players are back in position and all you have done is forfeited 5 tackles or even worse you are 18 points all and your in the last 2 mins of the game and the attacking team doesn't get a shot at two points to win the game?

I'd assume the messing around/holding down rule is in general play, and would guess if this is attempted after a break, there would still be the option for a penalty and sin-bin?

As said, 1 is an awful idea, one player would be bad enough but two just makes it far too easy to score.

I quite like 2, it's always seemed a bit odd to me that a high shot that leads to a player being out for the entire game, or an elbow to the face, or the attempted breaking of a leg can all end up with the same result as a player hanging on that split second too long, or setting off from the defensive line half a second too early. I look forward to see how this rule works in practice.

Split on the third, though I think it would come into play even less than 40/20s, and would be much easier to prevent you'd think. Not sure the rule is worth bothering with, I don't expect a successful one in this trial match.

I don't especially like any of them. The powerplay one is just horrible.

I like two and three but one is way beyond stupid!
When we change things the reason should be to attain improvement.
Two and three may well improve the game, with one the game just loses credibility.

Reading the full rules, under the power play, I note that the first point is

- Each team will receive one (1) optional power play in each half of the match.

It would be great if the captains of the respective teams in the all stars game declined to take this optional power play in protest of some idiots trying to ruin our great game

While I could cope with 2 and 3 I don't think they should be brought in.

1 is absolutely ludricrous.