How about each team is allowed a sniper with 1 bullet and they each have one minute to shoot a player of the opposition , we could have a lottery machine to decide which minute ?

The simple solution to the messing about at the ruck area ( obviously this doesn't happen in Australia because they complain about it every year at International level ) is penalise the Bstrds

Sorted

What if an infringement occurs on the first or zero tackle??? Not gaining much of an advantage are you?

I'll watch them in the All Stars match before passing judgement but my initial reaction is no to all of them.

1 - I don't like the sound of it at all. Maybe instead one player could only leave the field for only one play? That would be better but still don't think it's very good.

2 - If it was worked out properly (I'd go for a stand up and quick tap but no kicking for touch or goal) then it could work. Don't really like the idea of just wiping the tackle count down because it could be used cleverly by the defence.

3 - Don't like it at all. Punishes good defence

(1) has no real merit, in my opinion. It reduces the sport to It's a Knockout, and playing Jokers.

(2) sounds like it might need a wee bit of tweaking. The advantage that a penalty in that situation currently gives to the non-penalised side is a chance for 2 points or (some) territory and a reset of the tackle count. This change would remove two of those advantages. I suppose it reflects the view that some offences at the PTB are not as serious as others, so may currently be overlooked in order to keep the game flowing or not to - unjustly - award a chance of 2 points when the same offences have been left alone for the rest of the game. As the rules stand, they seem to be contributing to refereeing inconsistency, where individual judgement comes in to play, leading to player and fan frustration. Introducing the option to wipe the tackle count down instead of giving the penalty for those lesser offences (hand in on the ball where the ball is not fumbled, etc.) might result in more of them being punished, and it could be just the thing needed to clean up the ruck.

(3) I like the idea. A team being kept under pressure running out from its own line has few options at the moment: break/power through, or speculative kick over the top. That produces some great tries and action, but I think it gives the advantage to defensive rather than attacking play, at the moment. If the option is on for a 20-40, the defending team might want to drop back on the edges, potentially leaving more room for those breaks and speculative kicks; if they don't do that, the 20-40 is more of a goer. A 20-40 would reward good kickers, and rapidly switch defence to attack - which I think is a good thing for the dynamics of the game. I'd like to see it trialled more widely before being brought in at the top level.

Hate the idea of all three

The first option is clearly a showcase option, its akin to some of the rules in the NFL pro bowl in essence and isnt ever going to be introduced to the real game. This game is a bit of fun, its supposed to be fun and this rule is a bit of fun. Lets not take it too seriously.

The second rule is a bit of an issue, could be a godsend to the game, could be terrible. The PTB is a mess right now with the massive advantage of a penalty and 6 more tackles given sometimes, and nothing at all given for some very very similar play. If this lesser punishment gives refs the advantage of being able to punish laying on and slowing down at the PTB more readily then it would be a good thing. I dont really have a problem with defending teams 'tactically' holding down and seeing the tackle count reset. A clever player would use it wisely and i think that would an extra dimension to defensive play.

The downside is the possibility that every infringement wont be punished, which means that all this change will do is encourage more laying on and slowing down at the ptb, more hands in at the ruck (which the refereeing of in the four nations was pathetic) and more messing about, because the player knows he isnt likely to be punished and even if he is the punishment is lesser.

Its a decent idea but it needs to be refereed well

Number 3 seems a logical extension of existing rules. the 40/20 is a great success, the 20/40 is the logical extension of it, it doesnt punish great defence any more than a fantastic offload punishes great defence. Kicking those kicks is difficult and it is up to the defence to stop them, great defence should stop them. Saying that, i think the advantage would be too much if it was allowed on the last.

A couple of rules i would like to see trailed would be: High tackle is an automatic 5min sin bin. 'On report' means looked at by the VR and punishment handed down immediately, and play the game in four quarters of 20 mins.

1 is terrible. Just terrible.

3 is not a good idea in practice. A 40/20 is a difficult kick because the target area is small. A 20/40 isn't. It's easy because the target area is twice as big. It's too easy to hoof a ball down field into a 40m gap. Little thought has gone into it.

2 would be interesting to see how it works. I've often thought they should experiment with the penalty rule. I think such a small infringement that inconsistently policed like offside is harsh to give the opposite team the chance to boot the ball 50m up field or go for two in an important part of the game. And refs bottle it in the latter part of the game. Some things should just be a tap penalty (or in this instance, wiping the tackle count clean). Persistent offences can lead to a full penalty if teams are taking advantage of it.

Wouldnt work with offside imo. Could do with slowing down at the PTB but offside should be a penalty.

But with regards to the 20/40, how many 40/20 kicks have you seen go the wrong side of the try line? it is very rare, the bigger issue kickers face is getting the distance, and getting the angle to actually bounce and go out of play. I dont think I have seen a ball kicked from the behind the forty and it bounce and go dead behind the try line so i dont think the fact the area they need to hit is 40 metres instead of 20 will make a whole lot of difference.

What about following football's lead and having two type of offence - foul play and technical offences?

Foul play results in a penalty and technical offences, such as offside or markers not square result in play the ball and reset tackle count. Would speed things up and maybe even tidy up the play the ball

Why don't we install 6 pockets on the touchline and the corners. 2 points if a player sinks a corner pocket kick and four points for either middle pocket. I could never get them ones and I bet it's even harder with a rugby ball.

My initial reaction is: the NRL needs to realise it's not the global governing body of rugby league. That is all.

We could have a big charity match once a year with all sorts of crazy rules like the first one mentioned. Other rules could be tryscorer has to kick the conversion etc
Would be funny to watch and could hopefully raise some money for good causes