Am I missing something here?? You can still push against the head anyway can't you. I thought you just couldn't strike until the hooker who's head it was had done so.

Really? So an attacker can deliberately pass or kick the ball at a defender and it should be a knock-on?
Intention is everything in RL.


You'd have a playoff between a club that could be spending £1.6m on players and one that can only be spending a max of £300,000?

Hes talking about when you fail at an interception and instead knock on not talking about getting rid of the "played at" rule.

And as for the second part do you even read things? That is clearly talking about teams in the SL playing off for relegation. So, for example, you could have the top 8 system like now then the other 6 teams play-off for relegation. So for example as soon as you win a game you're safe until you get to a final it would need to be done like the old top 6 but in reverse. So for example the top 2 play each other and one of those is instantly safe or something similar. Not sure how it could be done exactly but hes not talking about playing our bottom teams against the Championships top teams no idea where you could even get that notion from. I dont know if youre a terrible troll or just incapable of reading things properly.

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.