Don't totally agree.

Be glad never to see a scrum again.

Stripping rule must go, utterly stupid.

6 again needs modifying, I'd make it the last tackle option only. Not as harsh as a penalty but will hopefully 1 again and a 5m gain. If the transgression requires more punishment than that then just give an old-fashioned penalty.

Agree with stripping - it's just dumb, does any fan like this rule? I don't understand what they even set out to achieve with the change.
Scrums i've got mixed feelings about - I do like to see a good scrum play but half the time they do slow the game down for little reward.

I think 6 again is a very good rule that just needs better implementation/refereeing. I always felt that most ruck transgressions were vastly over punished with a penalty especially if Brough was kicking for touch and so often they are real 50/50 calls anyway so open to interpretation, the 6 again just seems fairer and stops the game stopping and starting unnecessarily. My issue is is that because it's no longer a penalty and so less severe punishment they are given too often almost as though the bar as to what is an offence has been lowered. I noticed this in the NRL when they first came in, all of a sudden in some games the amount of 6 again was higher than the amount of penalties that would have been given if the rule hadn't changed. Especially in England, as has been hinted at in a post above, we seem obsessed with quick rucks and this l think diminishes over time the art of breaking teams down with proper ball handling, attacking plays and so I think the historically higher threshold applied at what is an offence in the NRL is better all round. How many penalty penalty try plays did we used to see in SL? 6 again implemented properly is a benefit to the game for me

What is the actual difference with the stripping rule? You have always been able to strip the ball one on one so that hasn`t changed, someone said previously you weren't allowed others to drop off the tackle for the tackle to then be deemed one on one but it happened all the time previously and was allowed so if that i the case the rule wasn't policed properly anyway.

I don`t like the idea of no scrums purely on the basis it advantages the defending side a lot more for just drilling the ball into touch, starting with a full defensive line at a stationery play the ball. At least with a scrum the first play has some variety more often than not.

This is how I see it.

In the past, the general rule seemed to be that if you were still on your feet in a one-on-one tackle you could have the ball stripped. Once you went down and hit the ground you couldn't, as you were deemed to be tackled.

Now you can be on the floor but if your elbows have not hit the ground you can still have the ball stripped so long as no other opposition player is touching you.

A lot for a ref to get right on the old rule, even more on the second one, which is even more subjective.

To me, the RFL has made a fairly contentious rule considerably more contentious, not a great idea IMHO.

My thoughts too

I know there has being a move towards getting rid of them as they are deemed pointless (certainly in Aussie media / news) which I do understand as they are no longer contested

But you’ve hit the nail on the head that it forces a different type of play though

I always thought that the second you had been tackled by more than one person the ball could no longer be stripped irrespective of what happened after that? I disagree that it happened all the time, not saying never but it wasn't a contentious issue at all in most cases

Rule was that once a 2nd player joined in the tackle it made no difference if he let go. If the 1st tackler then let go or the tackled player broke free it was all on again no matter how short the duration of the break was.

It's strange that in trying to make the ball strip cleaner / better, the new rule is three times as bad as the old one.

I think it's mainly to do with the speed of thought and reaction time by the ref. Add to this they they can't see all the players in contact as per MIckymouseovich's near crucial mistake last Sunday. Fortunately the linesman could see the extra Leigh player still in contact. Think the home crowd helped with that decision too.

I wonder if the fact that COVID-19 is once again disrupting fixtures that the idea of no relegation was thought to be a possibility.

Why would it?
The league is set up on a percentage basis to handle exactly this scenario.

Is it just me or what.

I don’t see who can replace Leigh for starters. They were didn’t win promotion they were awarded it. From what I’m told they barely got through themselves yet were miles ahead of anyone else.

Truth is there is no team currently operating in the Championship that is remotely ready for SL.

By default I can see Leigh getting another season.

I grew up with P&R but I think we need to face facts, it simply incompatible with SL. The NRL knows it, and if that’s who we wish to emulate we need to wake up.

I mean how ludicrous would it be for us to have an elite academy then get relegated. How can the game be built on that.

The way into SL has to now be by licence, a minimum of 3 years for the new club. At which point they are replace if a failure or added to if not.

There needs to be a way into SL but it needs to be planned whilst the trap door needs locking. Then and only then can clubs really build.

Keep the CCup and reinstate a pre season comp so as to spread the love a bit more.

Leigh were deemed to be the most prepared short term to take the position, they weren`t miles ahead of everyone else, in fact I would go as far to say if there wasn`t uncertainty around travel restrictions then it probably wouldn`t of been leigh.

I really don`t see how we can say the likes of Fev are incompatible for SL when you put them against the likes of Cas or us, they are a well run club of recent, great production line, better facilities than either of us, a good core fan base like us and Cas, all they are behind is 6 or 7 quality players in there first team which given an off season knowing they are in SL and with central funding that would go along way to catching them up. Can you come up with any reason as to why Fev would be incompatible yet we would? Other than us already been in SL?

Also, if it wouldn't make sense for us not to be in SL with an Elite Academy Licence then what about the likes of London, Newcastle, Bradford? I get two out of those three are deemed to be expansion areas but the point still stands, they aren`t in SL and probably won`t be anytime soon.

For me the team that wins the championship this season should come up for me, likely to be Tolouse or Fev, both are just as compatible as the majority of clubs in the league in my opinion.