They're already doing this! If there was only Eddie with a mike and nobody else throwing in their tuppence, perhaps he would simply do just commentary, rather than try to adjudicate over every tackle and play the ball.

I agree with that, although the problem with the cheating is that it isn't so much simulation but exaggeration, but what he has exaggerated is usually the effect of something that is in fact a penalty. There should be a greater obligation on the attacker to promote the game, not play for a penalty. That's why exaggeration=no penalty might sink in.

The only exception for me would be when the dummy half runs towards someone off-side. In reality, the dummy half is running into territory that should be for him and is tempting the defender to tackle him illegally. I don't have a problem with that.

The game does not need tweaking it needs a massive change to take a Great Leap Forward and in my view needs to re invent itself. The game needs to be quicker so some of the points previously raised about the ruck are important but it then needs to market itself properly. I would like to see more emphasis on skilful players rather than the bigger lumbering forwards

If we speed it up we need to then sell it to TV producers and execs. That means more advertising.

I would suggest that the game be changed from to 40 minute halves to three 25 minute thirds.

Reduce the number of substitutions that could be made to 2 per third so most players are playing the full 75 minutes. More tired players more opportunity for smaller skilful players.. 25 minutes would be th optimum .

Allow each team to pick from 5 subs to cover injuries but also to have a better balance on the bench to allow more tactical decisions around substitutions etc.

It would also be better for player welfare changing the game from bang and crash to skilful fast paced play

TV would prefer this format as it would fit in better with advertising sales.

With the TV renewal coming up where we all expect to lose money this would be a huge potential seller

Based on what, other than your opinion that is?
Union is a ponderous game by comparison but get's more attention and cash.........so "speeding up the game" will mean nowt in the greater scheme of things.

We have a good sport......it is televisually attractive and gets decent figures......what we lack is a management with the skills to get us the deal we deserve.

The Next TV deal will be negotiated by the Superleague Board......and whilst I have my reservations, at least they are 12 men with the business acumen to be able to own clubs........unlike Rimmer who is unqualified to negotiate anything.

Interesting thread this.

With regard to the playing side of things, the game has become a little stale and sanitised to an extent. I am all for player safety but hte ideal that ANY contact with the head is a foul is just plain wrong and is ultimately inconsitantly applied by the officials anyway. Would the ball carrier handing off a defender be penalised for contact to the head? Malicious contact should rightly be harshly penalised, but accidental clashes should not result in a player being yellow carded. This is a following effect from taking shoulder charges out of the game. I feel shoulder charges should be allowed, but of there is contact with the head involved in a shoulder charge, then its a straight red.

The player the ball has been exploited by a feww coaches to the detriment of the entire game. The number of times a tackled player either walks forward a few meters or moves off the mark to the side has become a joke. For me, this should them put any defender who'd been involved in the tackle instantly back onside to nullify the advantage the ball carrier is trying to obtain.

Scrums??? Either get rid of them or do them properly. I am not referring to Union, this is just a breather for Union forwards and becomes a dull pushing contest (which apparently is a skill in Union). A win against the head is rarer in Union than it is in League, so its hardly a truly contested scrum.

Kicks at goal!!! Reduce the amount of time which is allowed to run down before the ref calls time off. The one minute allowed was for the kicker to set the ball and attempted the kick. Now all that happens is that the kicker has a drink, quick chat with the ref / physio, lets the minute run down for the ref to call time off to than actually start the process of setting the ball. Its time wasting and cheating the fans out of what they have paid for.

Move the challenge cup final to middle of June and even move it away from Wembley. Gone are the days of coach loads / special trains from pubs and clubs around the north making up over half of the gate. Its an expensive day out. Granted, you are going to do it if its your team, but there is little to attract the neutral. Also, the semi finals are way too close to the final at the moment (especially whe you consider the near 2 month gap between the quarters and the semi).


MARKETING - CAN WE HAVE SOME PLEASE!!!!!!


NATIONAL TV COVERAGE - please see above


Pundits on TV - please stop bemoaning the negatives of the game / play. It breeds a poor opinion of the game to those who are new to it. Check out the coverage of Union (especially on Sky) even when play breaks down the pundits showcase the good play involved.


Get rid of Magic weekend - find enough teams to have a 14 club elite competition, play each other home and away and have a tope 6 play off system. This may involve franchising again, but the current fixture structure is lop sided and has been tried and not worked.

I agree about the kicks, MMJ. It should be a minute to take it. If he needs more than a minute, because of the difficulty of the kick, run the thing.

I blame the coaches more than the players. The delaying tactics are undoubtedly coached into them. Instinctively, the players want to attack, I would hope.

The shoulder charge is a tricky one. They could tweak it so that if there is contact with the head from a shoulder charge, it is deemed to be reckless and dangerous. It's the farce of accidental headshots that is ludicrous, like when the attacking player is slipping. The game cannot be sued for accidents. There is something called volenti non fit injuria in civil law, which basically means that you cannot recover for an outcome where you have voluntarily assumed a risk. You offer no protection for players for accidental contact, because no one means to do it. It is part and parcel of the game.

The game has become too much about how the game is refereed than about how the game is played, and it is not the spectacle it was. It hasn't slipped by much, but attendances are down at all games. Club games. Internationals. Grand Final. That has got to sink in.

12 Fag box leaned up against the upright for when a conversion is being taken.

On reflection I see the biggest single change we need is to have 1 game a week on FTA TV.

All of the rule changes suggested here are for the benefit of the existing fan base and will do little to attract new fans, either on TV or in Stadiums. Yes the PTB is a mess at times and the video referee taking as long as an episode of Quincy ME to make a decision, but in general the game as a spectator sport is pretty good.
Recent games, like the 2013 World Cup Semi-final Loss or the close semi and Final 2017 show that our game is capable of delivering the drama, but we fail to regularly follow up on these events.
A FTA game on BBC on a Saturday Evening would be a massive fillip to both the game and to the main broadcast partner SKY, as it would possibly get more people interested and therefore maybe see them get an upturn in subscriptions. (fanciful I now, but still a possibility)

If the SL chairmen are adamant that they want the game to grow and get more of a share of the sports revenue out there (Compete with Union I believe is how Adam Pearson described it) then they need to insist on 1 FTA game every week.....even if the OB costs are met by SL itself. It is proven that exposure to larger audiences attracts bigger crowds (see the NFL in C4 and the attendances now being seen in London as well as the early promise of the Monarchs back in the 90's) and even if it meas the SL clubs income from TV takes a hit, they will have an opportunity to recoup that money on the gate.

=#FF0000No need. Karen

I agree with Call Me God. We have moments of drama/interest/excitement in the year but most people only see this sporadically, maybe even only once a year. The Cup Final, Grand Final and recent Test match are great games for people to watch but then there’s nothing in between. We may well build some interest in November with the Test Matches being on BBC but then there’s nothing at all until February and nothing of note on FTA until July/August.

On a related point we build interest in a local area like Liverpool with the Test Match or Newcastle with the Magic Weekend but then never follow up on it.

A game on FTA every week would be huge for the game in my opinion.

A good post and plenty to agree with.

However, with some of the stuff going on regarding brain damage caused by contact with the head, it is more likely that we will see further attempts to reduce contact in this area, together with additional/stronger penalties.
I do agree that accidental contact should not be penalised but, could still allow head tests etc

Also, I massively agree with your comments regarding coverage of the game and how negative it has become.
We should be banging the drum about the athleticism of the players and the skills involved in executing certain plays both in attack and defence and offering some explanation as to how sides have read the play or opened up the opposition - I think that John Wells is pretty good as this.

I tend to agree - the coverage is stale and old, and tends to over-focus on negatives, errors or referee calls that are questionable, at least in the eyes of the commentators. It would be much more of a sell for the game if there was more notice paid to the strength, power, toughness, skill and athleticism on show - of which, regardless of your view of the quality of the game right now, there is plenty, every week, in every game. To a fan it's just annoying, eye-rolling stuff; to a new viewer, it's probably off-putting.

I also note that RL players are mostly absent from other media - there was a brief period when Tomkins and Sinfield were on QoS and such, and Keegan Hirst was a minor celeb for a while due to his personal story - but we don't have any 'personality' players who have transcended the sport and become celebrities in their own right; which seems odd, because the physicality and extreme challenge of RL would, you would imagine, be an interesting hook to find out more about the guys who play. That's perhaps an area in which the Hearn's would be an interesting proposition; they've made international celebrities out of some fairly ordinary guys who happen to be talented boxers. There would be a tonne of ways to market a RL player's personal brand, not least in the area of health, diet and wellbeing - with the added spice of ordinary, working class backgrounds, which is always a handy backstory.

It's not my area of expertise, but I would bet that a decent, centrally funded agency could do wonders with 3 or 4 RL players as clients.

Reckon there'd be many takers on the playing front? Every single player that shows an ounce of individuality or personality immediately becomes fair game for the sport's many boo-boys. Not surprisingly, given that much of the playing pool comprises young men with relatively low social confidence, I suspect many just prefer to keep their heads down and dodge that bullet.

I reckon there'd be plenty if they were earning out of it - RL hardly makes you rich.

As for the individuality and personality - I guess most incidents of that are negative; Joel Tomkins abusing a young barmaid went viral, Hardaker's latest in a long line of misdemeanours made the nationals, and the Trinity players who crashed the gaffers car into a wall got a lot of media. Maybe if some of our players were coached and managed, they could get similar attention, but for positive reasons?

As someone else said , a lot of the blame for the way the game looks nowadays can be placed at the feet of coaches. They'll always try to bend the rules to make them work for them, but active coaches have had far too much input into the way rules are interpreted or made. If you left it to them we'd end up with grid iron, because that would make everything controllable and coachable.

Whilst we can all have ideas, if we want to improve the spectacle I'd get a bunch of ex players and coaches (i.e. nobody currently involved with a team would be eligible) to work on ideas. Then use junior games to test them out.

As this is a forum, some ideas include:

- shot clock on scrums and dropouts, but only 15 seconds, not 30.
- three strikes then sin bin for all holding down/attempts to slow the attack
- all players in the scrum not able to move 5 metres from the scrum until after the second play has started. That would keep them out of the first play completely and possibly the second.
- allow quick taps for all penalties/restarts
- reduce interchanges to 6 at most
- bring back some ability to contest possession - e.g. striking at the PTB, stripping when more than one player is in the tackle

In terms of wrestling the biggest problem is the third and even 4th men into tackles. Players are taught how to hold up the runner and we end up with a bunch of players just struggling for no reason other than to delay the PTB. To make it worse we then have the tackled player 'magically' fall to the floor the second the ref calls held. You also have players like Cameron Smith who are expert at somehow getting themselves tangled up with the ball runner, further delaying attempts to PTB. We need to go back earlier calls of held and to a penalty if the tacklers don't get off immediately. Anyone who doesn't think this is possible should watch coverage of games before about 2010 - tacklers jumping off runners like scalded cats in comparison to today.

Being really radical, I'd also seriously consider not allowing more than two tacklers anywhere outside a teams 20 - a third or fourth could only join in if a player breaks a tackle or one of the others falls off. Players have shown with the current stripping rule that they can play to that sort of rule without a problem.

I have no idea what you posted so can't comment further and indeed won't if Karen saw fit to act, but, in fairness there was a lot of calls from posters on here for Mods to be active and tidy the place up as it was seen as a place full of trolls, multiple account holders, contributors derailing threads to suit their agendas, such as expansionism, RU, Leigh and Wakefield (bizarrely no disrespect to either club) or whatever the flavour of the month is.

It seems that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I do find the term Nazi offensive btw and as a Forum there has to be rules and some civility surely? I'm not particularly the banning 'type' ,but, recent actions have been met with some support, oh but only as long as it's this poster or that a poster.....

You can't have it both ways and criticizing the Moderation process is against the Forum rules.

I deleted the comment because it was unnecessary, rude, and offered absolutely nothing to the thread. Believe it or not, simply replying "What a load of crap" to a post isn't very mature. Don't agree with him, I have no problem with that, but at least put a counter argument against his comments rather that just being rude.

Have you read his post it was ridiculous it was like reading something from someone who’d never seen the game before so yeah it was a load of crap sorry to use such language in these sensitive times

It wasn't the language. It was your inability to put forward a counter argument as to why you believed it was a load of crap. Forums are about differing beliefs so feel free to put your argument forwards, just in a slightly more intelligent way than "What a load of crap"

My pet peeve is the 'fumble' interpretation of a ball that is lost backwards but ruled as a knock forward. It absolutely p****s me off to see the game stopped and a scrum given because a player has knocked the ball backwards, yet it happens time and again. I know some people think treating it as a 'fumble' penalises poor handling but that's not what is supposed to happen. As long as it's gone backwards I'd rather let both sets of players scramble for the loose ball than have an a technically unecessary scrum, the side making the error is penalised because they have to work harder to recover and the opposition gets a chance to either win possession or at least put some additional pressure on. I was watching the Wales v Scotland RU game on Saturday and I saw a ball get dropped backwards by Wales and the referee (correctly) ruled play on and the Welsh players scrambled to recover, and I said to my Dad in a SL game that would almost certainly have been rulled as a knock on despite it clearly going backwards.

One noticeable difference from an Aussie ref yesterday was that he allowed play to carry on when an England player was down injured in backplay. While there is a fine line between putting a team at a disadvantage when a player is genuinely injured, we would see a reduction in play acting and fake injuries if this was done more often.

We do that anyway. The only time we don’t is when play has already stopped, the injured player is in the way of the play, or it’s a head injury.

I don’t think there’s an issue with faked injuries during play, it’s when play has stopped that we have a problem.
Unfortunately now I think that we have to go down the football route, if a player needs the trainer/physio etc and play to be delayed then they should go off the pitch and not come back on for the next set of 6.

I don’t want to go down that route and there will be some legitimate injuries caught up in that unfairly but I don’t know of another way to discourage the faking of injuries that we currently see.

I think most agree the game needs speeding up. Though I’m not necessarily in the camp of ‘let’s do what the Aussies do’ I think they’ve made a few good changes recently.

1: Standardise the rules of the game throughout NRL, SL and internationals. Any future tweaks are agreed and implemented across all levels.

2: 2 referees, if this means loosing the VR and putting him on the field, so be it. See point 1.

3: Actually implement the rules, not an interpretation of. Ie when the ref calls held the players get of, not wait for the ref to be held then put the player to the floor then get off. If not it’s a penalty. With regard to this the refs need to call held sooner, as soon as forward momentum/being pushed back is stopped this will probably reduce offload but speed the PTB up. Attached must play the ball with the foot.

4: Shot clock, great innovation imo, see point 1.

5: Increase substitutes to 6, 2 of which must be club trained and under 21 at the start of the season and club trained. At the same time decrease substitutions to 8 per game.

6: Milking, let’s face it, every team and virtually every player are guilty of it to some extent. There was a great example in the test match. I think it was Hill who obviously made sure that he moved and played the ball directly into a player lying on the floor, tried to milk the penalty, ref ignored it resulting in Hill disadvantaging his own team. If the refs don’t give a penalty if they believe milking is involved the players will stop doing it.

As far as the rules go that’s a good start imo

If you are not a player, ref or actively attempting surgery on a fallen player you must not be on the pitch. Water should be available on the touch line. Stop coaches standing on the field of play directing players, in fact award extra points if the attacking team can trample underfoot anyone in a fluorescent bib on the pitch.