A double try or just double trouble?

Another move designed to squeeze in more ads for tv, nothing more and nothing less.

Geez Mr. Kaless, could you be anymore negative about anything in the All Stars game? Are you sure you are looking forward to the game? Cos it really doesn't sound like it! It is first and foremost an EXHIBITION game, so why not try out different things to make it more appealing then it already is? And they are not saying that it's no longer going to have conversions...it's an OPTION Mr. Kaless, so it's not like the great kickers of the game are going to be forgotten about. I'm so sick of everyone's damn negativity about this game!!! it's an awesome idea and it's going to be around for a LONG time so you might as well get used to it. I thrive on enthusiasm and that's what this game brings. Go Dragons.

And Union just keeps copying League. Read posts above concerning "running in"and realise that NFL came from Rugby as did League and this is a return to the roots of the game. So long as no kicking is allowed in trying to get the 2nd try, then I am all for it, but I do not think it would be used very often except as an option near the end of tight games. In think quarters might be for the heat (stupid) and of course the ground is marked like NFL, or rather the NFL is marked like Union. Flying wedges went out years ago. 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.

Is that a Steeden in your pocket or are you just excited to smell the linament?

rrrrrrrrrrrrrr rugby league!!! Oh yeah!

this looks as well thoughtout as one of those ideas form the american marketing guys in the CBA ads

Without looking it up I think it's very rare in the NRL proper (even in the early rounds), happens plenty in trial matches though due to heat. 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.

Agree MG. The spectacle of blokes like Folau plucking a concise bomb out of the air has added an extra dimension to the game.

Interesting really, I could see that kicks that are short of the try line should probably still be allowed so as to provide some element of unpredictability (stops everybody rushing up from the line). It's only a one off anyhow, if it was introduced into the Toyota Cup then I would hope they think through how it is used a little more.

I like Crosscoder's idea as well, although I think 1 extra tackle is enough. Not sure I'm TOO worried about the prevalence of kicking currently. I think there is a lot of variety in the types of kicks and no need to go too far with removing kicking as an option. Also, do we want to give the refs something else to think about?

Is it just the bomb that's banned on this play, or all types of kicking?

Agree, state of origin used to be the killer for me growing up, it felt like just about every game had an important 50/50 call and in close games that was the difference between winning and losing.

well ...kicking game is not too bad i think. Some great tries were scored by little kicks under the defensive line or on the wing, just remember the amazing try gasnier scored in anzac test 2008, and more recently a similar try was scored by australia in four nation final against england. These kind of try are unique.

Of course you have to ground the ball for a try, and you had to when running the ball in. 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 think the only suggestion that could work to reduce kicking is to have 2 extra tackles available if you don't. If in those two tackles you do kick, then it's an instant handover of possession (From the 10m line if inside the 10). Crosscoder is spot on with this idea. Would be great to see it trialed in the U20's. 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 think that most of these things are gimmicks they are implementing to drum up some publicity for the match. If they were serious about rule changes they would trial them in more than one match. Also, I wanna know what would happen to the quick-tap if every penalty decision needs to be explained by the ref? They don't have that problem in the NFL. 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!

The NRL always has during the first 4 weeks or so of the comp, a break at the 20min/60min marks if the heat warrants it (Queensland teams usually). It's only for 1 minute, that all said, I think the game has to go to quarters just to allow decent advertising opportunities to be built in to the telecast. 2 minute break wouldn't be that bad would it?

I'll bet money the four quarters is so they can have an ad break for tv. That'll be their main motivation for it.

You still had to touch the ball down on the ground to be awarded a try in rugby. As for soccer goals in rugby, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Show us all some linked sources.

Running in was removed from the game in the late 1800s. 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