NRL make raft of major rule changes for 2020 season

If it is pointed out to the bunker where they have clearly gone wrong as in hand of Foran they will have no excuse to stick to the incorrect call. The bunker misses things at times and the whole idea is to point out where they went wrong so the players, fans and coach get the right call. At the moment, millions of viewers can see crucial incorrect calls on their TV and it's crazy not to fix them up. Admitting they got it wrong three days later is of no use, if it's possible to remedy these crucial mistakes when it actually matters , they should do it I believe.

Love it!!!

I hate golden point as a draw is a valid result and it is unfair to all other teams that end their games at the 80 minute mark. But the worst thing about it is that it complicates the history of the game. There weren't that many draws in a season but now they're rare. There were two draws last year. I refuse to watch golden point and it if continues I'll just watch the Dragons for 80 minutes.

It's a risk but if you've been in the grind and you feel like you're starting to lose it this is a way to try to break it.

Another Pandora's box of rule changes. Yet they can't get the important ones right. The public are screaming for Golden Point to be abolished yet because Greenberg likes it , it stays. The Inglis and Burgess medical retirements must open up more possibilities for other players. I have no confidence in the current management structure and anything they suggest is always a band aid solution.

But what happens here? The bunker stuffs up, the coach challenges and its referred to the bunker. Why is the bunker suddenly going to change their mind?

The thing is. We already see plenty of midfield scrums when knock ons occur. Yet, We never see any plays such as youve described. I don't expect coaches to suddenly start doing so now.

The only change I really like is limiting the time that trainers are on the field & there are no details on that yet. Would feel a lot more confidence, in those making the changes, if they got their act together & released all changes together; complete with all details & descriptions, circumstances, etc.

Wouldn't it be great to see a scrum set in centre field with all the attackers on one side except one. Can you imagine Teddy or Addo-Carr if they were given that space. It would make the defensive line panic big time. If they have the extra defenders to cover for this then the attacking team can use its extra numbers on the other side. I am actually looking forward to see how coaches use this.

Only issue is, if it doesn't go out you've just given up 6 tackles with your team offside

It is just going to lead to more time wasting. Just get rid of scrums all together. Change over or quick tap is enough and that alone will significantly speed the game up.

It is not 40+ metres because league coomentaors can do maths fast enough for a kick from 30/30. I would much rather it be any 40 metre kick from one 10 metre zone to another 10 metre zone 40 metres down the field.

Will captains challenges include stripping the ball/loose carry contentious decisions. These decisions change the game as the NFL understands because these are renewed automatically but I fear they wont be because there maybe another issue here

I'm thinking more the fullback catches the kick inside his 20 and instead of hitting it up for tackle one he just boots it. Could we see the return of kicking duels?

RE 20/40, I don't think it needs to be made first three tackles. 40/20s rarely come off the last tackle because fullbacks and wings are usually well positioned to prevent them. In effect this ensures what you're advocating.

It probably will be messy. I believe it is well meant though. When they moved scrums from 10m in to 20m it was supposed to open up the short side but it has really closed up the open side. I think the idea is to give teams the opportunity to perform an attacking set play from the scrum, and idea that appeals to me but I'm not sure if this will do it without net detriment to the spectacle.

Or get rid of Golden Point and start games when they're scheduled. Whilst they persist with Golden Point though, they need to remove points scored in Golden Point from a team's points differential. A team that wins by 1 point in regular time shouldn't do worse than a team that scores a penalty goal or a try in golden point.

I think it will need to be improved and more challenges allowed. I've been calling for it for ages so I'm keen to see how it goes. I'd like to see the captain or coach be able to have a quick input when the bunker has stuffed up as in ''the hand of Foran'' .

Because mutual infringement applies to more than just the trainer interrupting play. And in most cases a one tackle advantage (you have to give someone the advantage) is better/fairer than a 6 tackle advantage. They could have added some sort of clause like if play is impacted by an official from one team, then it results in a hand over to the other team or something similar. But the mutual infringement rule applies to a whole variety of situations where it is not always the attacking team who will benefit. The most common example is the ball hitting the ref. Maybe a try was about to be scored only for the ball to hit the ref and deflect over the dead ball line. Replaying that one tackle is hardly justice but at least its something. Similarly, maybe the opposition fullback would have picked it up with no one in front of him and gone the length of the field. The kicking team don't deserve the ball back but at least its only for one tackle not 6. Other more obscure examples where this should have been applied but wasn't include something else disrupting play. There was a game against the Tigers where a ball, like not a match ball but just a random old footy, ended up on the field. A player kicked it forward towards the tigers winger as he was preparing to catch a cross field kick. It clearly disrupted his attention and he dropped the ball, resulting in a try to the opposition. There was a game against Raiders (I think Sharks) where Sharks were attacking. Sharks threw a horrible pass that looked forward and knocked on. All the raiders (and sharks) players stopped. One sharks player picked it up sort of looked around and started running. Raiders started to react then the touchie put his flag up (then back down, who knows what he was thinking) raiders players stopped again and the shark went through unopposed and a try awarded. Both these are examples of mutual infringement (but not adjudicated correctly at the time).

The 20 in 40/20 was because of commentary and stats about tackled in the opposition 20, and referring to inside the 20m as the attacking end or the red zone. The 40 was because (of more the idea than the reality) teams would be waiting until they reached the opposition half before spreading the ball. The threat of a 40/20 is supposed to result in wingers dropping back creating the chance to spread the ball to make metres/line breaks when still in your own half, instead of waiting until you get to halfway before playing attacking football. But, the simplest answer is because you need lines to determine distance. There would be no issue with a 30/30 but imagine the bunker trying to determine a real tight call of a 33/27 or 26/34. The software exist that it shouldn't be tough, but these guys cant even put a line across the screen to determine onside.