According to Richard Silverwood last night the rules committee has decided the following-

-That daft deadball line rule which was introduced last year is abolished.
-Instead of calling the captain over for repeated infringements there is a new signal (ref points at team and circles arm) as it was felt stopping to call the ref over was slowing attacking play.
-Penalty for offside on a 20 metre tap will be taken on the 30 metre line.
-No automatic sinbin for late challenge on kicker unless the ref deems it to be serious.
-If a team knock on the other team are guaranteed the next tackle. So if team A knocks on, a player from team B picks it up and runs the length of the field then is tackled into touch we go back for the knock on.

Hope that makes sense!

All seem to be common sense apart from the last one, which seems to be absolute nonsense, can't see that scenario as being the case.

I think the idea is to generate some creative/off the cuff play. Will be interesting to see how it is applied in practice.

The only one rule I'd hope they'd have looked at is the dragging/pushing in to touch. Oh and scrap on report and let the referee make a judgement call whether it be play on, penalty sufficient, sin bin or sending off.

The rule changes above aren't too bad though.

If there is a complaint, why can't the whole of RL play by the same rules?

Agree on the dragging/pushing thing. According to a poster in the Q&A thread, Bentham said that if refs made a call rather than putting something on report, 95% would be the wrong decision.

As for RL having the same rules throughout, we need the IRLF to get a grip. Which won't happen any time soon unfortunately! The whole Super League/Championship rules, amateur rules, NRL rules and international rules is getting a bit farcical.

I agree 95% of things on report are not sending offs which is what Bentham quoted, but empower them to make decisions on what they see and empower the liners to help them out. James Child pinged Myler for being offside charging down the Sinfield DG attempt when he was liner (yes, im still a little bitter at that call!) so they clearly have a voice. They're always going to get things wrong, they're human, so do players, coaches (except Smith), and us. But I'd rather them make the decision on the pitch than waiting 3 days for a tribunal to check it over when they check everything anyway. It's a cop out and brings more flack on the referees than a 50/50 call would.

Does the RLIF even exist? Or are they like a hidden clique that no-one ever sees or hears from? That or they're constantly stood behind Nigel Wood.

I'd like to see more from the merry flag wavers. I think the RLIF is essentially Wood and his foreign counterparts, who get together once a year and discuss not a lot. The ARL Commission drag their feet which doesn't help.

So SL aren't outlawing shoulder charges like they are in the NRL then ?

Yet to be decided, I am told.

I'd like to see the refs able to make more use of the video screen at televised games. Even to go so far as to allow the ref to pick the angles and replays to be shown and for him to tell the video ref whether he thinks its a try or not. Afterall when the decisions "goes upstairs" its the ref who knows exactly why he didnt award the try on the pitch.

I really can't stand the video ref, drives me mad. If anyone saw Featherstone v Leigh in September it was ridiculous the amount of calls that got sent upstairs. To be fair the referee does tell the VR what he wants looked at and tells them what they saw etc, we just don't always here it due to the commentators. You get a better idea with games on Premier Sports.

I would like to see them scrap 'benefit of the doubt' and send it back down to the referee. Credit where it is due though, our video refs do a pretty good job when compared to the imbeciles the NRL had working as video refs this year!

Why send it back to the ref when he isnt clear, hence why he sent it to the VR in the first instance!!

Because a lot of the time the ref and TJs had a better view than the cameras for something like grounding. Let the referee make a decision, rather than hoping for the best with benefit of the doubt.

Dare I suggest that we may end up with the question used in Rugby union......"Can you see any reason why I cannot award the try?" (translates as I think it was a try but I'm not sure).

Must abmit GO as a result of SKY you do tend to just hear the inital question Eh:- "Can you check the grounding?" and never hear the reason. Did the ref think he bounced it, didnt apply DOWNWARD pressure, defender got to it first?

With regards to the VF I think we should have a similar approach to union, as in 'is there any reason I can't award the try?' on close calls, or have a 'Ref's call' like they do in the NRL