The one I find interesting is were it says that the defensive line can only move when the player touches the ball with his heel at the play the ball. Considering very few players touch the ball with their foot at the play the ball this leaves it open to interpretation from the ref, who we are supposed to be trying to help. I know that it says there will be a clampdown on incorrect play the balls with players being told that they must make a genuine attempt to touch the ball with their foot, but this has always been the rule anyway. I think the wording "genuine attempt" should be removed and that it should read " has to touch the ball " with their foot. Otherwise refs will be slated all season whenever the ball is rolled through the legs and a penalty isn't given and then a try is scored from the resulting play. Let's face it playing the ball with the foot was always a basic of the game and shouldn't be hard for any player. Unfortunately in our rush to embrace speeding up everything about the game we have let a basic skill fall to the wayside.

It’s a really worrying time. The game needs to be improved, not watered down and it’s tough to see how we can attract new fans when the games will be littered with penalties. In the first trial game of these rules there were 54 penalties IIRC and the average over the whole trial was in excess of 40 per game. That isn’t the sport I know (and love) and we’ll have to see how much it impacts on people’s enjoyment.

The fans don’t want it and more importantly the players seem to be gutted by the changes and they’re changes I think that potentially make the game more dangerous (for defenders). If somebody told me that in 15/20 years time the sport in the UK is semi professional, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

Nevertheless, the same rule changes will surely come to the NRL too, and they will have to cope with it.

Is this factual or just theoretical?

Are the NRL thinking of bringing the same rules in?

Bear in mind that when it comes to legislating the game out of existence and basically telling the fans, who've had no say, that they'll now have to watch something else, the NRL has more to lose than SL as RL's a vastly bigger game over there with more vested interests.

I'd be genuinely interested to know if they are in the same position as us. If not, of course, that will put serious question-marks against all future internationals, WCCs, all of which are hard enough to organise as it is.

Also, despite asking several times, I've still not heard a coherent explanation as to why the same inevitability is not set to befall boxing, MMA etc. Again, I'd be genuinely interested to know how they are managing to resist when we supposedly can't.

£££

Without this the RFL's insurance premium was shooting up way past what they could afford. I don't know whether the NRL's insurance has also gone up but clearly they will be in a better financial position to consider just paying the increased bill rather than changing the sport.

I'd guess the key reason is boxers and MMA fighters are self employed and responsible for their own welfare