So, a few rounds into the season, how do people think the introduced rule changes are doing.

I hate the new advantage rule, it needs changing back to what it was - i think that it doesnt really add to the game.

I am also starting to get frustrated with the length of time it takes for conversions (We have Danny Tickle who takes an absolute age). I know the clock is stopped after a minute, but in my opinion, it needs stopping as soon as the try is scored and restated at the kick off.

Hull scored 9 tries last week - so 9 minutes of time was wasted with Tickle setting up the kick.

the game also highlighted the fact that referees are to intent on sending off people for fighting - as Horatio Yed said on the fighting thread - Man v Man should be yellows to take a breather, running in, blind side punches etc should be red's - we shouldnt be trying to take the intensity and physicality out of the game as this is what sets it aside from other sports

The new advantage rule is a weird one! It can be used tactically to waste time. For example a kick down field and a chase, just to be brought back to original place if the defending team get it back! It's a new rule that teams need to get used to, to really be used affectively, just hope teams don't take advantage of that rule to run down the clock on purpose.

On paper I could see the point of the advantage rule. In practise it doesn't really work. You essentially get a free tackle where you can go for broke and then if you don't score a try off it the referee pulls the play back 50 metres. It's odd. I think it worked better as it was. Nice try but the old way resulted in a more natural progression of play.

Every year we have new rules or rule changes it has come to a point now that i can not remember how good the game used to be, I say if it is not broke why fix it

I think the new advantage rule is a good one, under the old rule the only incentive was to dive on the ball and simply retain possession. Now there is an actual advantage for the non-offending team. The only tweak I would make is to say if the non-offending team kick the ball then it's advantage over, so it discourages a simple hack downfield.

The rule regarding taking the ball over the dead-ball line seems a daft one though.

Not going to bemoan the RFL for the advantage rule as can see what they were trying to do, but just don't think it works when you got to take the ball back 50m when it doesn't work out which is more often than not.

Whoever came up with the dead ball rule wants demoting. Shocking rule!!!

A lot of the hacks forward have just been lazy rubbish efforts though and I don't see the point......why give the oppostion time to organised their defence from the ref blowing up and having to restart? Surely take a tackle and try to get in a quick PTB before they're properly set in defence.

Not a fan of the making the ball dead.

I can see what they were trying to do, by saying if a kick has stopped then it can't be made dead. However there was a kick in the Saints Wire match last week. The ball was slowing so much that the next bounce would have been close to stopping the ball entirely. (who knows it is a Rugby ball after all).

It was a great kick nulified by making it dead as it was still moving backwards ever so slightly.

The advantage rule is a good idea, but the ball needs to really get to a halfbacks hands to get anything decent out of it. Ratchford seamed to have his head on, when he got the ball. But too many times it ends up with a prop who just runs it in anyway. I would not change it back as it does add a creative element. If they hack it down field it's only going to take a few seconds, it can take that long for a scrum anyway.

i quite like the advantage rule asmakes for an exciting play but thought that the rule they trialled where chargedowns dont wipe the tackle count would have been better and made sense

Like others, I can see the point of the new advantage interpretation - and I like it too!

The going back down the pitch to form a scrum at the point of the original infringement can look a bit odd but, in a [isome[/i cases, that will be a good indicator of how hard a team has tried to take their advantage (and hopefully provided some additional excitement through the change in pace).

I'd adjust the rule so that if the ref needs to go back to the original infringement, the scrum is formed at the place where the team taking advantage last had possession of the ball. So it might be at the point the ball was kicked away, because a defender got to the ball first. Or it would be the last place they had ball in hand.