To reduce the number of tries from kicks in the air, how about incentivising running tries by awarding 5 points and say 3 points for a try where there has been a kick during that particular tackle. I for one am bored with kicks on the last tackle and the eternity taken by the VR deciding if it was/wasn't a try.

Create a new line thats 5m out from the try line, then if the defending side catches a kick (without the ball bouncing) behind said line (in the air or stood on the ground), they get a penalty on the half way line.

Seeing as a lot of kicks are necessary because a team are running out of options would a complete overhaul of the system be in order as so....1. Do away with 6 tackles altogether & have say 10 tackles to allow a team to do more with the ball in hand,2. reduce the ten metres at the ruck to suit something more like Saints,Wigan ,Leeds distances, 3.allow striking by the marker at ptb & 4. encouraging more aggressive defence to get the ball back. 5.disallow kicks intended to turn a team round to getting possession further back than their last tackle play which currently allows an attacking team to punish defensive effort.

For me, the low quality games are due to fewer juniors playing the game at grass roots, leading to lower quality players coming through to SL. So rather than change the rules I would suggest that all SL clubs should be forced to spend 5% of their income in promoting / supporting local clubs in their area. If they can't afford it, then they drop into the Championship.

Unless we turn around the decline in playing numbers we will eventually cease to exist.

i'd welcome striking at the ptb returning, it would encourage tackles to get up and off and not mess about as much in the ruck, and it would make ppl in possession play the ball properly with the foot, because of the danger of losing possession

The marquee player allowance.

Scrap it and raise the cap.

We don't want the best and brightest leaving the league. But RU and the NRL can offer more money (and prestige).

The cap is designed to keep things financially on a relatively level playing field. But as not all clubs are operating at or near to the cap, the financial playing field is currently not level anyway, regardless of the cap.

Want more excitement and box office players? Let the big clubs spend their money, to bring in (and keep) quality players into the league.

The marquee player rule doesn't work. There are probably fewer than 5 marquee players in SL, of an available 24 slots.

The signing of Tomkins and Sandow show how it should work. But both clubs could probably have signed those players regardless of the marquee rule. Tomkins wanted to come home, and Sandow was in exile. It just gave the players more licence to demand more money, as they knew any more they asked for didn't count towards the cap. It put the clubs in a worse negotiating position, most likely costing them more than if the rule didn't exist.

George Williams is not a marquee player. Wigan had to use their one remaining slot to keep a young player with potential. They've kept an existing player, who again was in a strong bargaining position due to the vacant slot, who's cost them a lot more in wages than if the marquee slots didn't exist. They're actually worse off for it.

I think you'll see those slots being used by the big clubs more to juggle more cap room anyway by adding their current players in order to take part of their existing wage off the cap, rather than being used to attract top talent to the league.

I'm yet to see the marquee rule make a real difference to the players in or out.

Raise the cap, scrap marquee, allow clubs to pay top players their market value - given the "market" contains two other leagues that can pay bang average players far more.

I think there is a danger that a so called marquee player can cause resentment within any team. To be respected as earning his extra money a marquee player needs to put in the appropriate stint each & every week & to prove he is worth every penny.
As for 24 possible marquee spots available, i doubt there are anywhere near enough quality players worthy of that mantle.

I think grassroots youngsters are the way forward Charlie providing there is a full network to promote & support the lads through to open age level. I don't know whether schools still promote sport these days or is it still frowned upon as persecuting the less physically competitive ?

Seeing as

1) We have had clubs go into administration with the salary cap in place (defeats financial argument)
2) Only 4 teams have won the GF with the salary cap in place (defeats competition levelling argument)

Is there an argument for removing it completely. If that means that realistically only Wire, Leeds, Hull, Wigan, Saints, Salford can spend big - so be it.

The benefits would be attracting higher calibre players "stars" from the NRL and raising the quality of games. Presently all teams are being levelled downwards.

And no doubt Toronto, toulouse and in the future new york will have cash to splash too which by making the game more star studded and entertaining will increase crowd and participation numbers. Salary cap has to go as at the minute the game is dying a rapid rate and needs a financial boost asap....and we have people in the game willing to spend.

To give an indication of my vintage, when I started following the Wire I used to wait behind the main stand at Wilderspool every home game and ask Brian Bevan to sign my match programme. Although he seemed reluctant he never refused. Perhaps because I was a little kid he had some sympathy. He was an odd looking character, shabby gaberdine mac with his boots in a brown paper parcel tucked beneath his arm. You'd never dream he was the greatest RL winger who ever lived. When I was old enough and had the cash I purchased a season ticket and had one every season until three years ago. I had the privilege of seeing all the Wire greats from the early 50's until three years ago. Until that time three of us had seats in the North Stand. Slowly but surely my interest waned. The game I started watching all those years ago had changed irrevocably. The skills had gone from the game, sidesteps, dummies, change of pace, swerves and what you might call kidology...The game had been reduced to a biff bash wrestling match, no skills required but brute force and ignorance and endless kicking of the ball, something we used to laugh at Rugby Union for. I found myself leaving the match earlier and earlier, I was bored rigid. Of course I couldn't leave my mates stranded for transport so I went to my car and listened to the radio. Eventually I was sat in the north stand at one match, can't remember which and I asked myself *What am I doing here* I left and have not been back since. What to do ? Well perhaps something I wrote to the sports page of the Post and Evening Chronicle 50 years ago. Reduce the teams to 11 players and do away with the scrums...any infringements to be restarted with a tap penalty to the opposition....Present day scrums are a farce anyway with half backs joining the scrum, the other halfback joining the centres and a biff bash forward playing standoff....I knew my time had come when coaches and commentators started talking about left and right channels and wingers being called edge runners...Perhaps I'm looking at the old game through rose tinted spectacles and yes there were terrible games in the old days particularly when Yorkshire teams paid a visit and they tended to stick the ball up their jumpers and you just couldn't get the ball off them but in the main they were a rarity and most of the matches were good entertainment. I still watch the game on TV but rarely last more than twenty minutes. To quote a hoary old cliche *I didn't leave the game, the game left me*