I have an idea for a rule change, something that I think would help keep the game flowing and reduce frustration caused by the number of penalties.

What if, offsides, markers not square, holding down, back chatting to the ref and any other 'minor' offences were punishable simply with a 'back to one' for the attacking team.

instead of the ref blowing the whistle, stopping the game and awarding the penalty. he could blow the whistle three times and give the back to one signal. play could continue with a fresh set of six.

if the penalty is given while the ball is in play then that would become the zero tackle, if the penalty was given during the tackle then the next tackle would be the 1st.

this would have a number of advantages:

- teams who've made a break and downfield and are held down would not lose momentum or their try scoring opportunity as the defence will not have got back when the penalty is awarded.

- if an attacking side is awarded a penalty whilst in the opponents 40, the territorial advantage gained is negligible and can result in a loss of momentum.

- the game would flow better

if a player continues to hold down the player once back to one has been called then you could have an automatic sin-bin for the offender.

i wouldn't allow kicks for goal from these penalties.

penalties for violent conduct, high tackles and what the referee deems to be "serious offences" would be punishable in the same way they are now and you could even go as far as to make a penalty kick worth 3.

I've said for years get rid of the 'markers not square'rule. annoys me no end.
As for your idea, I dunno, I like it but its a draaaastic change. Can't see it myself, I think players would moan it was confusing not knowing what a penalty was given for but you're not far off a great idea there.

yeah, it's probably in need of a bit of tweaking.

three short whistles could signify a "back to one offence" and I don't think there'd be any confusion once everyone got used to it.

great idea

a penalty is too big a stick to beat a defending team for a minor offence.

how many times you see teams scoring off a penalty when its for something very minor

OK, so 10 seconds from the end of the game, your team is one point behind and on the attack. Defending team is penalised and you are not able to take a kick at goal? Not for me thanks.

so even if it makes RL better in 99% of cases you wouldnt go for it based on that scenario?

i think winning a game in that manner (offside, markers not square, holding down) is a bit of a cop out and more suited to rugby union.

So you think kicking for goal should be taken out of the game altogether? I know some people associate kicking with Rugby Union but it has been a major part of Rugby League for many years and should continue to do so. It may make more sense if the attacking team were given the option of six more tackles or the kick at goal - though I see some difficulties putting that into practice.

Why? Its the rules. SO being high tackled and kicking the penalty wouldnt be a cop out? How do you draw the line on what should and should not be awarded a penalty?

Interesting idea.
I think its probably a bit too drastic.

ONe thing that should be addressed.
When the ball isnt played properly ala.. Lee Briers,
Penelty should go the other way.

well, no. what i said was that a penalty from a high tackle could be kicked. I just think 2 points stemming from an offside, markers not square or holding down is a bit of a cop out.


everything would still be a "penalty" but there'd be two categories.

Category 1: Holding down, offside, markers not square, interference at the play the ball, ball stealing

Category 2: Punching, high tackle, violent conduct

You could only kick for touch or goal from a category two offence.

It's just an idea!