I don't think reducing the numbers in the scrum had any effect infact if anything it benefitted the defending side which makes it all the more confusing.

Restarting at the 40 if the kick goes dead would be a good permanent rule to stop sides just hoofing it long with the intention of it going out and having a controlled restart.

The charge down i'm not sure, i like the idea of it benefitting sides who pressure the kicker but as with today there was confusion over who got the feed after the ball was charged down and then went into touch.

But, friendlies are definitely the platform to trail these rules and some will improve the game others won't. They just need clarity

For me the ref had a few rule changes today that weren't sanctioned by the RFL

Was/is the proposal that either team can lose a man from the scrum? or just the attacking team? if its both, Id agree that it benefits the defending team. If its just the attacking team, I can see it being a given try for some teams! it wont take teams long to polish a 5 on 4 move in their favour.



Agreed, however, a kicking team are only conceding another 20 meters and I think teams would still be prepared to kick it dead and back themselves to defend their line. After all, its still going to be a controlled restart.





This one could really cause some grief in my opinion. With todays scenario where we went for a last tackle charge down and the ball ended up in touch, head and feed went to Leeds, so that would suggest that in the referees opinion the wakefield man played at the ball, as a pose to the ball playing him.

Now, the proposed rule change encourages the defending team to pressure the kicker/try and charge the kick down, but if teams are going to do that, then the ball ends up in touch and the scrum goes against them, where is the reward that was encouraged?

If we're going to implement this rule, I think that if the ball strikes the defender charging it down and it ends up in touch, we need to award possession to that defenders team on the grounds that if it struck him and didn't go into touch, he wouldn't be penalised for a knock on, and nor would the kicking team have their tackle count restarted.

I a player is going to bust a gut trying to charge a kick down, he shouldn't be penalised for playing at the ball if the kicking team aren't to be awarded 6 more tackles. It could become a grey area very quickly otherwise.

1. If I am not mistaken, it is the attacking side only- hence where the "advantage" comes from, but from what I could see the loose forward of the defensive side just left the scrum earlier nullifying this advantage.

2. not sure I agree with that, even though it is a controlled start, the fact it is on the 40 changes the complexion of the attack- one tackle and you could be in the defensive half, and an attacking kick, much more punishing.

3. agreed!!

I like the 3 rules:

1 - The scrum, with these being a joke the advantage has gone to the defence, with the FB filling in at 13 for a run back into position, and second rowers just peeling into the line this rule gives back to attack which can only be a good thing

2 - tap on 40, if you put in a good kick chase and then keep them in their own half where is the justice for them then to unskilfully blast the ball down and field of play and get you to line up on the 20, this i also believes encourages a better kicking game and acts as a reward for good defence

3 - charge down - i remember when we beat wire at the HJ last year ball in hand we started wall but our kicking game was less the good. we were in poor positions and kicked late and a good rushing wire defence charged down 2 or 3 kicks but we regained the ball every time and get a second set of 6, helping us with a great start in the game which was the difference in the game, surely rewarding poor attack and punishing good / unlucky defence