That 6 to go rule sounds like the only one with any legs to me. I think that could well catch on in the next 5 years. The power play bit is stupidly gimmicky.

The details of the actual rule are not clear, e.g. can you just neutralize it by making your pick at the same time so it is 11 v 11. How will it be signalled? Maybe something NFL the coach throws a flag down? In which case do we get a video ref decision if both coaches do it at the same time?





Will be interesting to watch to see which players get picked and how the teams react. But, yes, a bit gimmicky.

maybe you should read down the page a bit further ? viewtopic.php?f=2&t=514659

maybe you should read down the page a bit further ? viewtopic.php?f=2&t=514659

1. Appalling. Stupidest idea ever. I can think of a dozen reasons off the cuff why it's a bad idea; but let's go with just one. I'm coaching a team playing against Thurston (or pick other key playmaker). Call powerplay on my first posession, and don't even attemp to score. Just use the 5 minutes to run my forwards at Thurston every play. Make him make 20 tackles in 5 minutes and effectively remove him from the game.



2. Hmmm. Why not. Let's give the refs a soft option rather than making them actually penalise illegal play.



3. Fine. Let's just kick the ball away any chance we get. Oh, wait; that's why Southern Hemisphere Union is known as kick-n-clap. Boring much?



I see no merit in any of them.

No 2 has some potential imo. From a technical infringement I’d give the non offending side the choice of a) taking a tap & resetting the tackle count, or b) kicking for touch & continuing the tackle count. Early in the tackle count sides may opt to take the metres from a kick, late in the count they’d probably opt for another set.

A ' Technical ' infringement ? , you mean ' Cheating ' ? , deliberate cheating ?



Do we want to change the rules to encourage deliberate cheating ?

Offending team would still be penalised. How does this encourage them to cheat?

If you had a tap penalty or wiping of the count for both holding down and offside, anytime anyone made a break you would simply hold them down until the ref wiped the count, then the team mate next to you can tackle the player from an offside position (because they can just hang around the ruck) wipe the count again, lay on, wipe the count. Meanwhile the defensive line organises itself and any advantage has been lost yeah you can give a penalty in that situation but we give a penalty for just one of those offences now. The point the wiping of the count rather than tap penalty would be to speed up the game and allow refs to be more consistent on judging those offences. We would lose that by allowing offside players to be punished with a wiping of the count.



It does allow for a bigger angle, but not really in a significant way. And the angle itself isnt significant anyway. If a player kicks the ball from the behind the 20 and it goes out beyond the oppositions 20 its a 40/20 anyway.

Because you are reducing the penalty , the problem isn't with the rules , they are fine , it's the application of them that the Aussies have a problem with , they dont like to be penalised for cheating , they moan about refferee's applying the laws of the game to their superstar athlete's

Don't agree. I think this is an area that needs to be looked at. If we weren't prepared to change things up a bit to see what does / doesn't work we'd still be playing union.

1. Power play? Silly gimmick. The game doesn't need it.



2. The idea of wiping down the tackle count for holding down does have an appeal. It would also mean the ball was in play for a higher percentage of the game and it might help discourage wrestling in the tackle. If your team's tackling style involves a lot of holding down, that might mean your team is defending a lot more than they would under the old rules



3. For all the extra time the ball would be in play for rule 2, that time could very likely be lost for this one. If I want to see the ball hoofed down field from behind the 20 yard line, I'll go watch RU thanks

There is already a puishment for ileagal holding down , it's called a penalty



I am amazed that some on here are somehow looking at infringements that already exist as something new , and therefore needing a new puishment



You're all Nuts