It is called evolution and all codes look to each other for improvements. I think that is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read.

Oh yeah!

I’ve seen a few people complain that this is the TV companies intruding on the game and before you know it there’ll be breaks in the NRL but I think it’s a bit of a beat up. We’ve seen this plenty of times before in trial matches without any suggestion it would become standard for the serious stuff. That said, if it is suggested it should be shot down with force – as a fan who acknowledges that money makes the world go round I don’t mind if they plaster every spare space with advertising, if someone (Coke maybe) wants to pay them to play on red grass… I can even take the constant betting spruiking. Stopping the game for an ad break though is a step too far, the ebb and flow of the game is already sometimes dented by interminably slow video decisions, to schedule further interuptions would be detrimental.

Where were soccer goals mentinoned. Maybe I should have said over the cross bar and between the uprights. In years gone by there were goals (conversions), penalty goals, field goals, drop goals and goals from marks, all using Rugby posts but different values at different times. Goals were worth a point originally and up to seven but the try value did not count, field goals and drop goals were worth four points and penalty goals, three. Field goals were eliminated in 1904, goals from a matk in thw 1980s and the drop goal reduced to three in 1946. Also in the 1980s the try was five points and the conversion worth two.

Running in is mentioned in “Tom Browne’s Schooldays” and all values cf scoring methods can be seen by reading the Rugby Law books issued from 1845 onwards.

I don’t like the mark (though we do sort of have that already for catches in the ingoal). And really hate the field the ball and place it down behind you own tryline, as that takes grubbers out, and makes it impossible to force a repeat set.

I’d also like to hear Roarers opinions and ideas on the following: In several comments above a lot of people complained that there is too much kicking close to the try-line. I must say it’s something in rugby league I don’t like that much; it seems most of the time teams are in the opposition 20 m with one tackle left they either kick a bomb or a grubber and hope for the best. I’d like to see more running tries with players running into space or breaking tackles. I think they could try two things to fix this:

1) Bring back the mark within 20 m of your try-line. They do this in rugby union to try and reduce kicking close to the try-line and it seems to work.
2) Because bringing back the mark would probably just mean teams kick grubbers instead of bombs, what about if you field the ball behind your own try-line and place it down you get your full 6 tackles from the 20 m line? If you carry it back over the try-line it’s a turnover like it is now.

Any other ideas/suggestions? I’d like the NRL to actually try and fix things people have a problem with! Rather than this other stuff no one have ever complained about!

As for soccer goals in rugby, that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

Show us all some linked sources.

Therefore Master Blaster, I suggest you look at the history of Rugby scoring throughout the ages. American football continued with the running in but changed the reason.

Another one is the field goal. It is different from a drop goal. The field goal was if the ball was loose on the ground, then you scored if you kicked it over the cross bar. This was removed as a scoring option in 1904 but the drop goal remained

It wasn’t that long ago that many areas of the game where subject to video review, but the NRL had to stop that and make it only apply to tries.

We can’t go back to a game with a video review, and even the NFL knew that their game was better for it being in the game, though they had to remove it before the realisation came that sometimes you can only miss what you have had. People had forgotten how many stupid calls ref’s can make without the aid of the video to assist them.

Not disputing that’s the case more a question

But it was funny to hear the red zone used for the first time in the NRL

No need for the double try, I would hate to see a try from dummy half and the succesful ‘conversion’ attempt end up destroying a 6 or 7 point advantage. Makes the field goal useless. Anyway without kicking I see about a 5% success rate for double try conversions.