Eighteen ways to fix the greatest game of all

I think the best example is rugby union, they have no stripping rule and stripping is pretty infrequent because the tackled player can almost always get to the ground. Without putting a lot of thought into it, allowing stripping would probably be a good thing. Get to the ground early, or hold on until held is called - otherwise you lose the ball.

Why not a tap penalty for stripping, non violent penalties where it s a lottery. 6 tackles and 40 yards is too much of a deterrent for penalties where the ref is guessing and so the ref is too scared to make a decision. 6 more tackles is enough of a deterrent though I guess they would try on the first tackle to strip. If the ref is undecided or unsighted when the ball comes loose then give the ball back to the owner, if he sees a deliberate 2 man strip then penalty. It decides too many games.

It wasn't to snuff out the long kick, it was to snuff out the kick to the corner landing in the in goal.

Fix / enforce the cap. It would be doing teams like Melb, NQ, Bris... a favour as there would be no disadvantage during origin. If the talent is spread, all teams can compete more fairly and no team will be missing more than 2 or 3 players during Origin. Gotta feel for these teams full of rep players, how can we make up for denying them of a star studded roster for a few weeks each year.

It was also to stop the Melbourne snooze fest of cross-kick to the corner. It was designed to ask them to go through the hands or take the risk of the cross-kick with the risk of giving up a 7 tackle set. I agree that for a knock on in-goal it shouldn't be a 7 tackle set, but any kick that goes dead or is caught on the full, it should be a 7 tackle set. Regardless of where it was kicked from.

That would work. From memory though, this wasn't a frequent tactic that anyone ever attempted. It was noticed in the media that Soward intentionally did this in a game a few times to minimise Hayne (I think?) in 2010 or 2011 somewhere. He probably did it a handful of other times too but it was hardly the default end to their sets and I don't think there was any epidemic on the way. But your suggestion of kicks outside the 20m would take care of that regardless.

I'm usually mostly sanguine with rules progress but I think they completely stuffed it up on the seven tackle set. It's a terrible solution to a problem that barely existed. That genuine attacking kicks or a fumble in scoring a try can lead to such a significant penalty for the attacking team far outweighs the minor benefit of discouraging the long kick dead (which was almost never done anyway).

Players should be using their foot, it is a skill of the game and it needs to be enforced. This letting it go for a season every three years needs to stop.

That is the other thing. If you are a conservative coach, you will tell you players to go to ground as quick as possible. You could always open up the stripping rule so a two man tackle can allow stripping, I am searching for anything to open up the game. 4 reserves would do it but I think the stripping rule has some potential with tweaking to encourage running/passing football.

I would guess it would be the latter and to the detriment of the game as a spectacle. You're right insofar as you would have 'pack hunting' the ball so there would be open spaces for more adventurous teams but even then there would be a huge emphasis on getting to the ground when caught. I do think returning the in-goal knock on, kick dead back to a 6 tackle set from the 20m provided they were kicked inside the 20m. I'll offer one. Why is the rule different between the goal and touch lines re; catching the ball having a foot either side. You are no longer allowed to have one foot either side of touch for an Out on the Full ruling but one foot in goal and it's 7 tackle set? If the FB jumps with one foot either side he is judged to be in the field of play - play on.

I was actually thinking that if we did make that change to the stripping rule then it might have the unexpected consequence of forcing players to move the ball around so they could avoid 3-4 man tackles. That change would promote attacking footy more than anything else and get us away from the hit up dominated game we see now. And if players did have the ball stripped it would give us more changes of possession and that does lead to more broken footy. But my counter point to my own argument is they have no stripping rule in the NFL and that just leads to players focusing on making sure they never remotely let go of the ball. And given the risk adverse, mistake hating, conservative coaches we have now, getting rid of the stripping rule might see even more hit ups. I would like to see it trailed so see what would happen, but there is a chance it could open the game up much more.

The stripping rule probably isn't as much a 50/50 as we make it out to be. Imo if you wrap up the ball (which is a key defensive move in today's game) you're going to risk giving away the penalty if it comes loose. In reality I'd say that when it comes loose and a player had the ball wrapped up its closer to a 80-20 in favour of the attacking team. For the 20m rule I'd be happy for just a quick tap and the players offside are simply dead for that play (similar to the play the ball rule.) rather than the players having to wait for everyone to come back onside. If a player loses it in the in goal and it doesn't go dead I'd be fine with a scrum at the 10 or 20 in the middle of the field. 7 tackles and the (relatively) quick tap is just too advantageous for a side in today's game. There's really nothing more to add though in regards to players getting up and playing the ball. Especially annoys me the inconsistency we see where a defending player will be penalised for crowding after a play the ball goes wrong even though the attacking player is still on his knees when he plants the ball down.

I'd like to see the 7 tackle set for kicks that go dead to only be for kicks is outside the20m. It was brought in to stop what the Dragons did under Wayne with Soward kicking dead from halfway and the dragons presenting a set defensive line. But now a kick from 1m out that touches the touch in goal line gives away 7 tackles.

Can you imagine the game with stripping allowed TB? Three men hold one guy up and the fourth attacks the ball . What a huge improvement that would be ??? The response to that rule is likely to be run low, go to ground quickly and try for a quick play the ball. No big collisions , no post contact metres just hit and fall. Sounds like another game with a similar name.

Unfortunately have to keep the stripping rule, Previously multiple gang tacklers (not the wrestling kind) monstered ball carriers who were physically unable to retain posession which became a real blight. OK with the rest. There are several other issues related to Rules which need fixing but which would take up an entire issue of The Roar to analyse, but one other aspect which does depress my game day experiences, is that of the GROUND ANNOUNCERS! How on earth did these guys become part of game day 'entertainment'? - with the constant inane and ignorant drivel most of them impose on spectators usually at maximum decibels! And don't get me started on the canned music (usually of the hip hop type) that the NRL has introduced to click in at every halt in play. Very irritating and disruptive to concentration on the game. To this very long term observer, the NRL administration at times appears to follow a policy determined to drag the game 'downmarket'.

Haha...almost pulled my hair out at the "18 things to change title..." well done! I think allowing stealing would just swap one set of problems for another. It would be too easy these days to wrap and hold and have the third or fourth man in nab the ball. Play the balls need to be cleaned up in general. Playing from the knees, walking off the mark, hands and knees in the play the ball, markers not square, flopping to get a penalty. Too late for this season but I'd support a crackdown in 2018. I agree wholeheartedly about the seven tackle set. The rule was brought in to stop teams kicking the ball dead from 30-40 out not to punish someone for not grounding the ball and should be revised to reflect that.

Funny thing, I recall a RLW article in early 2001, going through the trials. The NRL had decided to test allowing 2 on 1 strips. It was abandoned because the game became a massive strip-fest (not of the kind you'd want at your bucks' night) and little actual football was played. Canning the stripping rule would be even worse. I'm perfectly fine with the other two ideas, though.

Have to disagree. As much as the strip is a lottery, allowing it in general would make when held is called more controversial. A tackle being a tackle is clear (purpose is to stop progress). Giving the players an unspecified length to try and wrestle the ball free creates an ambiguity over purpose. Do you call held or give it a couple seconds to see what happens (who really has the ball)? I already don't like wrestling as a tactic, but this would encourage more of it and open the door on new ambiguities/complaints. My gripe is tolerating players putting their knees into the play the ball area or otherwise forcing the attacking player to have to step back. Requiring players to get to their feet is sensible, but comes on an environment where defending players alter the tackle after it's complete and play the balls are already slow. Once the tackle is called as complete, they don't simply get off the player. Complete means you shouldn't have an opportunity to further disadvantage the player by turning them, altering your grip, or standing close enough that they can't play the ball in their current position.