and also which captain is the least successful with how it's used...

i really like it in the NRL, adds a bit more spice.

me too, the jeopardy of going for it early in the game on something that may not be cast iron......

Hope they get the VR on the ground PA like in the NRL too

My biggest problem with that set of rule changes, is one line in the "Contested Dropouts" rule:



Any rule that includes "in the opinion of" is not a rule, but more of a guideline that will be interpreted differently by different referees, and possibly even by the same ref at different times in the same game.

It won't come up more than once in a season never mind a game. Basically it's closing a loophole that would have been created. Without this, someone could just kick it an inch with seconds left to allow a half/game to end rather than risk the opposition fielding the drop out. You could substitute the words 'in the opinion of the ref' before every rule tbf, they're all down to his/her judgement.

That's what I thought as well. Although some are more literal than other, probably half of referee decisions are down to their judgement of the laws.

Who the hell wrote that green card rule? It's an absolute state. Basically anybody staying down forcing the ref to stop play will be subject to either a HIA, interchange or green card.... Except if they stay down as a result of foul play. In that case they won't need to do any of the above (unless a physio deems they need a HIA ofc)

Now, I was never of the opinion that they should introduce a green card for players staying down... IMO you can't really encourage players that might be injured to get back up as that takes us backwards (I think it would be better to just allow the VR to review the incident whilst play continues and advise the ref in terms of sanctions so he can apply it the next time the game stops) but I have no idea what this rule is supposed to achieve. Surely just going to make the issue worse.

It's hard because we'd got to a point where they were staying down to stop play when the opposition had a roll on, but the green card does potentially encourage players to get up when they're genuinely injured which isn't great either. I don't like the common rule but not sure what a good rule would be to replace it with.

Yeah I get that, the problem with this current ruling is it actually encourages players to stay down if they've been hit high, because it will get reviewed and if they're right then they won't have to take a green card or a sub.

It definitely is a tough one to solve, there are pros and cons to all of the suggestions but obviously welfare does have to come above all. Thats why I think the best bet is to let the VR review the incident as play goes on, and then can advise the ref who can dish out any sanctions at the next stoppage in play. Of course this isn't ideal as you can be missing out on a pen but at least it stops the thought of "oh I'll stay down here and he might get a yellow/red" as if warranted then it'll happen regardless.

Whilst I agree in principal in what you say it would be really difficult to police effectively as some reviews may take longer than others and there could have been several PTB's before the VR has had a proper look and a try may have been scored in the mean time, so where do you bring it back to, what if the non offending team intercepts a pass and goes the length of the field and scores, do you deny them a try to bring it back 70m for a penalty, the restart would potentially be a nightmare for refs to decide upon.

Like you say player welfare has to trump everything else, especially with the law suit cases going on at the moment, but there is no one fit for it.