Is he? That's not what he posted. He posted that the ref shouldn't have to judge on a players intentions, ie whether a player is attempting to make a tackle or to catch the ball. If you fail at an interception and knock-on then a scrum is conceded. He is saying that regardless of whether you whether you were attempting to make an interception or make a tackle and the ball comes off you then it should be a knock-on. Which could easily lead to attackers deliberately passing or kicking the ball at defenders and claiming a knock-on. As I said, intention is everything in RL.


Is it clearly talking about that? It doesn't mention either way, and there have been numerous proposals on the VT in the past about such a playoff between the top of 1 league versus the bottom of another. Which is why I asked the question.

As you know I've been banging on about the kicking the ball dead rule for years. I would have taken it one step further and had the tap from where the ball was kicked.

The standing out of the scrum rule is a joke. It's artificially trying to compensate for lack of creativity in the backs (particularly at 6 and 7)

I quite like the charge down rule as well as the kicking it dead rule.

I've never liked the knock on rule when making a tackle. The player is focussed on tackling the man with the ball and stopping the offload and he shouldn't be punished for doing just that.