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.

I wonder if you would be clapping that comment if Leigh didn't find themselves almost dead certain for relegation, I think not.

Sorry but you are wrong, Leigh was the only team deemed remotely capable, I've been told this by a few people,

You miss the point, it's not that Fev is not incompatible, virtually no team is compatible these days with just one year's grace, surely you get that?

Yes, it would be ludicrous regarding the Elite Academise if we went down. You're somewhat twisting it here. Newcastle and London go theirs based on location and spreading the game, let's be honest here and Bradford didn't get a licence to start with. However, the real issue is if we went bust on relegation, MC says we won't and I believe him but it's time-limited. If we don't get the new stand and we wallow in the Championship too long then that won't last.

The game needs stability, it's the biggest single difference between SL and the NRL.

Do you think the NRL would invite Fev to join them, Do you think it would ask us if we weren't already here?

Promotion and relegation should be taken over a 3 season average.
Promotion.
If you finisg top twice over the 3 seasons you are promoted.
If A different team finishes top over the 3 seasons it goes to a points difference.
If in the first 2 seasons a team finishes top it gives it the opportunity to recruit during season 3
Relegation.
The same as promotion but in reverse.
A team finishing bottom during season 1 can at least be given the opportunity to recruit for season 2 and 3.
If you finish bottom 2 seasons on the go at least you know your going to be relegated at the end of season 3

Because he's being realistic and you're clinging to dogma. If Covid has done anything it's put the Championship even further behind the SL, the gap is now enormous. Doesn't matter whether you like it or not it's a fact. I've been waching the game for 40 years and I remember a time when a promoted club could actually go on and win the comp within a season or two, not a chance now,. It's a different world and that pomantic part of the game is dead, I wish it wasn't but it is.

So case study Fev.

The pitch slopes, not just a bit but a lot, this is totally unacceptable for an SL club. That would cost their first year's players budget to sort.

The floodlights are totally inadequate.

The ground still only holds 7,000 I believe, 3000 short.

The club lacks all the basics of a junior setup.

Its corporate support and facilities virtually non-existent when compared to top SL clubs.

Featherstone is not even a town it's a village, even if you tag on Pontefract it's not a huge catchment area and it's one it shares with two existing SL clubs.

Fev has never in their entire history been a fully professional club, those involved have very limited experience, at least Leigh has had a few goes at it.

And so on.

Of course a lot of the above applies to us and Cas but as they say, possession is 9/10 of the law. We are lacking as a SL club but nowhere near as lacking as Fev.

P&R in its historical sense is dead, we sold that bit of heritage when we took the SKY coin, but like all dinosaurs, it's taken a long time for the tail to get the message to the brain.

By your own admission a lot of what you stipulate applies to us and Cas also, regardless of what you reference on possession that's just not true in this case, if we go back to licensing so be it, we will also see 90% of the pressure Fev will see to meet the criteria, that`s just the truth, as we stand SL, Championship all leagues are about who is the most competitive on the field at the end of the day, that's what gets you promoted, that's what gets you relegated.

I do agree by the way, it`s very hard for a promoted team to be competitive and stay up but that's just sport, we shouldn't look for ways to help clubs out to be a SL team when there are at least 15/16 teams wanting a spot in a league of 12. Of course teams that are currently in the league and have been for years have the advantage, it`s a step up for them and that's the way it should be, if they are good enough they stay up and build something, simple.

By the way, he`s not being realistic, he`s showing support for something that suits a club he supports right now, as I say if Leigh weren't in the position that they were in currently you and I both know he would not be on here clapping that comment.

1. We started the season with P&R 2.The disruption from Covid up until now is very minimal 3. We have a system in place to ensure a fair league table come the end of the season. Why, again do we change the goalpost mid season?

I need a lie down in a dark room......

If we're scrapping promotion and relegation then we might aswell scrap the Championship and League 1, because if they've nothing to play for what's the point?

With all the recent outrage over the European Super League in football, what's the difference if we scrap P&R? And many fans would be in favour if we if we weren't already in SL?

I'd have to disagree with that bit, but even on a points based system alone and with everyone managing to play all their assigned fixtures we still don't have that due to the stupid loop fixtures and magic weekend games.

Not true any more than it's true in Australia.

Every club should have the right to play in SL I agree but not via the antiquated method of one up one down, it's utterly destructive.

I don't actually have a formula of my own but I do know the existing one is totally unfit for purpose.

I suppose if I were forced then I'd have a points system, of which you must get a minimum of 80 points (with the rest being partly discretionary) out of 100 to gain promotion and a three years license.

1: Win the competition obviously. 70 points.

2: Financial security deposited with the RFL to protect wages and allow the club temporary administration if club crashes, say 100k (refundable). 5 points.

3: Modern corporate facilities/players facilities/floodlights/pitch. 5 points

4: A stadium with a minimum 5,000 capacity and the ability to do that to 7,000 with a temporary structure or better a permanent one. 10 points, partly discretionary for year 1.

5: An agreement to run a U19's side, self-funded year 2, year 3 add U17's, end of year 3 apply for elite status. 10 points, partly discretionary for year 1.

Surely Australia is different on the basis that its common to earn a very good fulltime salary playing outside of the NRL, you might get the odd championship player earning a good living but the majority are part time, there`s just not the money over here for that, not to mention the majority of those competitions are made up of clubs that are feeder clubs to NRL clubs, wholly owned and operated by those organisations in most situations.