Wouldn't work unless the passer was stood completely still. A forward pass isn't a pass that travels forwards, in fact most passes travel forwards due to the fact players are moving forwards as they pass them. A forward pass is a pass that is rl]passed forwards.rl] The motion of the players hands matters, not the motion of the ball.

If each player had wrist band sensors or a chip implanted and the ball had a sensor you could determine if the attacking players were in front of the ball when it was passed. I don't know it would probably be too messy to implement.

The majority of forward passes aren't situations where the receiver was already in front of the passer though. Gelling's forward pass to Charnley in the Grand Final was one of the biggest forward passes you are likely to see, yet Charnley was in line with Gelling when the ball was passed. So we would be investing a lot of money in technology without much use. Aside from that, have you seen how often the refs, who aren't involved in any collisions, have trouble with a simple comms kit? Imagine how much trouble we would have with 34 pairs of wrist sensors, and sensors in every match ball, all of which will be involved in loads of collisions, and yet presumably would need to be finely calibrated. It's a nice idea but totally impractical.

Considering the more entertaining tries that are scored tend to come out wide I'd disagree with this.

Couldn't agree more. Warrington in particular are clearly coached to try and place the markers out of position - they consistently lurch forward or sideways a step or two before placing the ball - marginal but often leaves the markers unable to defend. Drives me mad. Ryan Atkins is imo the worst offender by far.

Another rule I'd bin is the ref's try/no try call. If the ref isn't sure he's doing nothing more than making his best guess, which places the VR in a more difficult position. It adds complications where there are enough already. Peyroux's disallowed try is a great example of why it doesn't work.


Of course it does - it polices offside at the scrum: "To be in play, the ball must emerge from the scrum..." A switched-on team uses all the rules to their advantage and this is no different.

It might be cheeky and frustrating for the opposition, but it's completely legal and places the onus on the defending team to see the ball in play or hear the ref's call before they move up in defence.

Nah it's a horrible idea.

Nail on head. How the heck can one sport be played using different rules? Not only are some of the rules different, the number of refs used is different (which definitely impacts play) and some of the interpretations are different. It's an absolutely ridiculous situation to be in, and just makes the sport seem even more amateur.

I don't know I think it's more degrading conceding a try under your own sticks and should it not be punished more than some fortuitous kick in the corner for a winger to dive on?

Come back and post this when you don't have talima tautai playing for you, then you can point fingers

Back to 4 tackle rule - no only joking

Proper play the ball with the foot, not this silly roll the ball backwards and step over it and also allow the 1st marker to strike for the ball - ahh the Dereck Pike good old days

Or a lucky grubber under the sticks that bounces oddly?

Cracking tries are scored all across the width of the pitch not just in one area. And the same is true of weak defence. It just depends on the attacks type of game. Some teams with a top hooker and props who are good support runners will score nearer the posts. But so will teams who attack from their own half.

Teams with good centres and wingers will score more out wide than in the middle. But so will teams who struggle and just stick a kick to the corner.

Where a try is scored usually has no relevance to the quality of the try.

How about properly contested scrums with the referee/match official feeding the ball down the middle? It's just become a formality and a farce over the past few decades. Players not packing down properly and forwards now taking backs positions in the attacking and defending lines. If the only reason for keeping them is because people like to see some attacking moves (from the scrum) why don't we just get rid and come up with another way of making 6 players on each team dormant. Rather than a scrum why not make the forwards go off the pitch for the next set? 7 v 7 would encourage some really entertaining attacking play with all the extra space. I remember the Wigan 7's years ago and it was brilliant entertainment.

The whole 'foot out of play then touch the ball' annoys me, i'd penalise that or at least make the rules clearer.

Yes! Horrible rule.