The video referee should be allowed, as in australia, to pass back the decision to the referee as ref's call. Many times the ref goes to the video ref 'just to confirm or be absolutely sure' what he believes was/was not a try. When then he does go to the video ref then many times the quality of the slow motion (frame jumping) or obstruction from the other players prevents a definitive decision being made, but he HAS to make one even though the referee was very close to the action and as stated earlier in my post he already has a good opinion if it was in fact a try or not.

Maybe a way around this would be give the video ref the chance to view the footage as happens now. Give him a max of 2mins and if no decision in that time he then communicates with the referee and either says he cannot make a decision or he believes it 'almost' certainly is (or not) a try based on the limited view he had and the referee then can make the decision from the info from the video ref combined with his own view.

the fact that scrums are still been used

Catch a kick on the full behind your tryline its an immediate 20m restart.
Catch a grubber behind your line and you have to get out or face a dropout.

Why?

Er... One of the newer rules says that you get the ball back if you kick if out straight from a 20 metre restart (obviously ball needs to land in-field first). Unless it's been removed, but i had it done to me twice last season.

I don't like this dragging a person out is a penalty, and i've never been a big fan of the 40/20.

I disagree with that. A quick tap from a penalty is fair enough because it's a punishment but not from a dead ball situation. There is sufficient advantage with taking it from the 20.

Far from simple really. It would be impossible to tell whether the ball was just lost or whether it was an attempted pass. We'd be in another of those did `he play at it or not situations` which are a nightmare as it is. Not only that you'd finish up with players not risking the off-load in case it went to ground and was called a knock on, which would mean more one out football.

We have a winner. Punishes bad defence as much as it rewards a good kick. If you find touch in the oppositions 20 you have gained good field position which is reward enough.

"international" rules aka if you dont play our way we wont play at all, boohoo, wah wah, the kiwis beat us again we cant give the english a chance etc

Needless over use of the vr! For crossing ect that's the refs job if he can't do it why have him just have a vr with a hooter and a megaphone to bark the calls. SL 1984

For me it's the rule that French clubs need to appear in the 2010 Grand Final to get into Super League.

Meow saucer of milk for 1

Scoring tries with the forearm and fingernails!!!!

Liam Watts for Hull KR on Saturday. Lost control of the ball then touched it briefly with his arm. Never a try in a million years and he thought that himself.

Harlequins scored a similar one on Friday night.

IMO you should have full control of the ball

I still mourn the banning of striking for the ball at the PTB. Stuart Cocker scored half of his tries that way.

I agree with this one.

I can understand it being a bit unfair when a team lobs a 25m pass from behind the dead ball line to a guy who has been hanging around on the 20m line upfield before the defence can get back, but its wholy unfair on the many occasions when a speedy winger or full back scoots the ball up from behind the touchline and runs all the way to the 20m line and is then told to go back after taking a quick tap - surely if he can run that distance, the defence can retreat by a similar margin, given that they'll largely have been based 10m or more back from the try line.

It's the equivalent of a goal kick in football - when would a keeper ever be booked for taking a quick goal kick..?

Agree those who form the scrum to get the clock stopped should have to stay in the scrum

They do in the NRL and that rule has been called rotten

Scrum breaking up too early - every one does it so why bother with the scrum - make them stay bound until there is a/ a tackle or b/ the ball has been passed and the receiver has it.

The whole surrender/dominant call at the tackle.

Anything that is open to interpretation rather than a matter of fact just puts more pressure on match officials and leads to inconsistency.

Make the tackle, get off and get the game restarted. If you've been truly "dominant" in the tackle you'll have such good body position that you'll be able to legally control the play the ball anyway.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

You have watched James Graham haven't you? He spends more time diving on the floor than premiership footballers!! It's no wonder all the dissenters came from St Helens when the quick PTB disappeared, this guy was stealing a living ala Melbourne Storm '99.

Two flippin referees, simple.

They should allow them the option to kick off or receive

Scrum should only break when the ref shouts that it's out the back.

I have to admit the "fumble" interpretation (i.e. the player lost it but it clearly went backwards) of the knock on drives me mad, it's just stupid, might as well just call all fumbles as a knock on rather than the current situation where it's pot luck whether the referee allows play on from a fumble backwards or pulls it up.

Back to six after a charged down kick.
The emphasis should be on the side in possession to get their kick away. If they fail to do so, that's either bad play by them or good play by the opposition. If you regather the rebound you certainly have not 'earned' another set so the tackle count should continue (which could lead to some exciting off-the-cuffery).
Another advantage to changing this rule it would mean the ref would no longer need to make the sometimes difficult distinction between a chargedown and being accidentally struck with the ball.
It might also discourage the almost inevitable grubber when you're near the opposition line on last tackle if an opponent could stick a foot out to block it without potentially giving another set away.

Not really, if a player is carrying the ball and he passes it backwards and it goes to ground it is not a fumble. If a player who is catching the ball fails to take it cleanly and drops it then it is a fumble. The only problem would be if a referee can't tell the difference between a player catching and a player passing. The only time this would be an issue would be if a player bats the ball rather than catches and passes it, in which case it's a fumble if it hits the ground, and not a fumble if another player catches it.

At the moment it's hit and miss whether a ball knocked backwards is going to get play on, and that's very frustrating because it's inconsistent and because it's a poor execution of the laws.

I disagree, a charge down is not just making a play for the ball, it is actually playing the ball, so whoever comes up with posession is entitled to another set. There is no issue with the interpretation of a charge down itself, an actual charge down is a pretty clear and deliberate act, the issue is the borderline between accidental contact and deliberate contact with a kick, but there are probably a few ways of clarifying and making that more consistent.