see.

1. Reduce tries that are scored directly from kicks to 2 points. If there is a pass after the kick, like in the Mark Gasnier try from Greg Inglis in 2008 vs. NZ then it's a 4 point try.
2. Get rid of conversions.
3. Interchanges down to 8.
4. Reduce the number of players on the bench to 3. Carl Ablett didn't come on during the semi-final.
5. In-goals down to 5.9 metres. Repeat sets are too easy to get. Though this isn't much of an issue in England.

1 & 3 have bn mentioned by many ppl over the past 2 years. I want to see less wasted time so aerobic capacity plays a bigger role in the sport. I want training regimes to change so they spend less time lifting weights. This is one way of going about it, and also making it less important to have really tall wingers or centres. The Roosters used this too much during 2013 for my liking.

OzWelsh are you Phil Clarke?

1. Pathetic idea, some of best tries I've seen have come directly from kicks.
2. Just Stupid.
3. 10 interchanges is about right IMO.
4. 4 on the bench is what it should be.

Disagree on everything apart from the kicks idea. I'd just say that tries scored directly from a kick don't get a kick for conversion.

There would still be tries from kicks, just that they would be half the number points, so hopefully more quality and less quantity of them.

With regards to idea number 4, you can't use one example as an argument for a rule change!

Disagree on all.

1. Tries from kicks aren't a problem, teams just need to defend them better. All it does is further complicate an already complicated game.

2. No reason to get rid of conversions. It occasionally adds an extra dimension to the game.

3. Think 10 is about right. Much less and you start losing the bigger forwards (the few we have left) due to fitness demands. Again losing another dimension.

4. Unnecessary change and just reduces options available to coaches.

5. Not necessary here and you only picked 5.9m so that it's just under the current minimum of 6m.

Introduce items 1 and 2 and Kev may as well hang up his boots.

Amuses me that fans of the self titled, THE GREATEST GAME spend time thinking of ways to change it

Well fax, as Michael Vick is probably the world's best all-round sportsman but can't get a game in the NFL at QB and Jay Cutler can, and you need to be at least 183cm to be a QB, Vick is 183, maybe ppl think he's too short, then I'd stop (American) football immediately. Rugby union, their ruck area and scrums, also the line-outs encourage kicking out of play. (European) football, well where do I start, the off-side rule is far too negative/spiteful, should be abolished, too much diving, and it's a stupid game. So that leaves rugby league and (Australian) football as contact sports played on turf/grass, I prefer rugby league. So turn the NY Giants + jest into RL teams and extend the playing area of the Meadowlands.

There's room for improvement in everything. Rugby league will never be perfect, neither will football (Aussie). Unsurprisingly the Aussies have produced the two best team based contact sports on the planet. Though ice hockey isn't too bad, and neither is field hockey.

I'd rather just leave it the way it is. ( well apart from the shoulder charge rule)

As Lockyer has said, get rid of the scrum, just have a hand over, I agree.

Australia's try just before half time in the pool game v England shows why the scrum is a good way to hand-over or restart. Burgess was too knackered to get over to pack down....he stood in the centre position and got skinned....it ties up 6 defenders and gives you a fair chance of making good yards on the first set.

Right...that's far Too much actual RL talk from me...I'm off for a lie down

thanx, well Jay Cutler wasn't the best example then maybe?

Anyway, look at Peyton Manning, looks as if he would struggle to save a baby from the sea, and M.Vick? Well as you know.