A serious one, no ' secondary tackling ' if more than 1 tackler is involved

Ie, once you have effected a tackle ie say around the midrift of a player , once you release that grip, you are not allowed to touch the player again, no secondary grabbing, no grabbing of boot, not even pushing as in touching the player as he regains his feet and plays the ball, instant penalty, I know this would instantly retire Danny Buderus but it would it would speed up the game

How about turning the home kit inside out, that what we had to do as kids.

Quarters. Extra ad break for the tv companies, breaks up the game at a time when a team can run away with it which would keep the game closer

I was being serious too

A little historical aside...

originally in rugby, you didn't get points for a try at all...it was indeed a 'try' - that is, your reward for grounding the ball over the line was to have a free attempt at kicking a goal - the only way you got points.

On a slightly serious note why do people want to speed up the game any more? Half the problems come with players trying to slow it down as the 10 meter rule makes it very dificult to get on side. The only thing that will happen if we take kicking out of the game is to turn all players into the same size & shape. We also have a problem that the game is becoming too predicable 6 plays & kick with little variation in play it is starting to get one dimentional.
I would make it the duty of a player in attack or defence to keep the ball in play so diving to the ground that is coached nowadays (winning the floor) should be rightly punished as a voulantry tackle as it is just as bad as hand on the ball in the ruck.

1 and 2 I agree with fully.

3 is a complete non-starter. What do the non-international/SoO SL and NRL players do during this shutdown month? Who would want a break from watching SL and NRL to then watching the Kiwis and England coast through their respective competitions against mostly part-time players. Mid-season RL international tournaments are a long, long way off. Ireland, Scotland and Italy don't even have a semi-pro club team, cobbling together a group of players because of dodgy eligibility rules would not have the appeal that you suggest it would.

The emerging nations, and more specifically the grassroots and club game in the emerging nations needs years of development before any sort of mid-season international tournament on either side of the globe would have any sort of appeal. It simply does not work when one side is far superior to the others and the outcome is a forgone conclusion before it's even started.

The players not playing get a months rest, helps teams plan operations or rest injuries.

Yes England and New Zealand would walk it the first few times BUT what it does is gives regular games and probablya better sense of belonging to these players, we build better fan bases and prevent the stocking up of players for England and NZ, players want to play for Eng and NZ because they're always involved in the big games, if we give them regular games against the bigger teams players are more likely to choose Wales and Ireland, I would go sone way to stopping country hopping.

The WC shows iy has legs, triple head the games this side. Possibly play all the games in NZ on the other side, England and NZ have a responsibility to drag these teams up.

So the players who aren't involved go cold for a month, and then are expected to come back and play in the business end of the season, sure the clubs will love that.

I agree that it is the responsibilty of the established countries to help the development of the emerging ones, but it's not going to happen just by playing our first choice team against there's more regularly and putting 80 on them. And it wouldn't just be the first few times, until there is a larger pool of players to choose from in these emerging nations it would be the same story for 10 years+.

The World Cup showed that there's an appetite to watch international RL between the developing nations, IN A WORLD CUP. Look at the scores and attendances of last year's European Autumn International series, these are the sorts of figures we could expect in a mid-season tournament. The major draw to watching some of the developing nations in the WC was to watch the NRL players that Fiji, Samoa etc had playing for them, not to see which Whitehaven player is playing for Scotland because his grandad saw someone play the bagpipes once.

Who are these players who aren't choosing to play for Wales or Ireland because they're not playing enough games against the big sides?

The next step of international RL development needs to be at grassroots level, increasing the numbers of genuine Irish, Welsh, Italian and Scottish people playing the game, forming club sides and amateur leagues, with the hope of getting some playing at a semi-pro level and then towards SL. All this is years away but IMO would have to happen before a meaningful European international tournament could be mooted. The French are leading the way in terms of European development, with their own domestic league and a team in SL, but it's been shown time and time again that they don't have the player pool to compete at the top level with Aus, NZ and England.

If the ball is kicked dead, the defending team should get a penalty from where the ball was kicked. Kicking the ball dead is now being used as a tactic so that you can set up your defensive line on the 20 and have a breather.

Nope. All it would do is penalise attempted good kicks that stray too long. It would encourage kickers to kick for safety or the sidelines instead of attempting to get the ball in-goal.

If the defending team don't want that 20m upfield then they can defend the kick quite easily.

Its not a good kick if its goes dead though, is it?