Just got to know the right dealers

Video ref to be limited to one slo mo from each angle and susbsequently one freeze frame from chosen angle. If he can't decide from that then try or ideally ref call. I don't understand how a video ref can watch the same replay umpteen times and have no doubt.



Double movements to be assessed in real time.

I'd also get rid of ball stripping one on one, i think it complicates decisions for the referee and leads to confusion.

I'm not sure about your first point,but I whole heartidly agree with you concerning the playoffs,8 is 2 too many for me.

No that's not what I meant all. Maybe a bad example. In RU the assumption is that a try has NOT been scored. It has to be proved that it was all ok. The reason I quoted that sentence was to show that even though the ref could find no reason to disallow the try he still wanted the 'TMO' to have a look. In essence what they are trying to do is find a reason not to give tries (something becoming more evident in the NRL, I'm afraid to say). RL has it right that the ref only refers when there is a specific area(s) of play to look at that might indicate a legitimate try was not scored - rather than just handing it over willy-nilly. As I said before the key thing is that the player got over the line with the ball, from this point on the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side. Sorry if the RU example confused that point. I find that RU is particularly adept at making the simple things overcomplex!

The scrums are a joke and are mainly used for the players to get a breather.



Let the referee place the ball on the ground, the scrum then forms over the ball but the hookers are not allowed to touch or strike for it until the referee blows his whistle.



Thus we would have contested scrums again and add some element of skill for the hookers and some more unexpected outcomes for the spectators. Ican see no problem with this proposal and it would add the uncertainty factor that would make it fascinating. The scrum halves would retire behind the scrum waiting for the ball to appear.

I'd like to see the exit of the ball from the scrum delayed a second or two to give the non-feeding team more of an opportunity chance to fully contest if they wish. An idea I had was to require the ball to exit the scrum either at the base of the scrum (by the loose forward picking it up or the SH getting it from the LF's feet) or on the opposite side from where the ball was put in. The feeding team would be allowed to choose which side to feed from in return.



I don't know if this would work in practive without making the scrum a disaster area like those in another code but it might encourage both teams to bind properly rather than preparing to run back to their defensive or attacking positions.

or feed the ball in straight … (as the letter of the rules actually still requires)

or replace a scrum with a lineout

(waits for tb to give me another history lesson)

stupid boy!

I was jesting

Yes, though I seem to remember reading about an amusing IRLB decision to make an official amendment to the unofficial policy of ignoring that rule in the early 90s!



My idea is for an tweak/evolution of the existing 'settlement' rather than rolling back to feeding the tunnel.