What one law change would you make to the game to make it better? 

Might cut down on the pointless kicks.

I think this would reduce injuries, but implementing this will mean a lot of teams - most teams in fact - will have to amend their game plans. 

I'm for it, though, if it reduces injuries. 

It would stop the existence of 20 stone props, reduce injuries and increase the number of players actually playing.

And open the game up . .  gets my backing 100%

That law rewarded those who knew the laws.

Funnily enough, this provision still exists in the NFL in the form of the "Fair catch kick" whereby a fair catch from a punt or restart after a score can be followed by an attempt at goal. It doesn't often happen because most fair catches will happen within the receiving team's territory, meaning that the kick will be a minimum of 60 yards. Also, there will usually be a better play available unless time is about to run out.  So almost all attempts occur at the end of a half where the team attempting the kick is no more than 3 points adrift, as that is what a successful kick earns, same as a field goal.  

It's such a rare play that there is usually intense consultation between the coaching teams and the officials on the field as to what formations are possible before the kick is attempted.  Incidentally, the kicker is not allowed a kicking tee, so a holder must be used, but as there is no scrimmage,and no snap, a full run-up to the kick is possible, meaning that greater distance is possible than for a conventional field goal.  Accuracy, however, remains an issue at long distance.  

To put this in perspective, the last successful attempt was in 1976, by Ray Wersching, then playing for the San Diego Chargers vs the Buffalo Bills.  This was from a mere 45 yards, so something clearly went wrong from the Bills' PoV.  There have been 9 subsequent attempts, the most recent in October 2019 in London, when Joey Slye of the Carolina Panthers missed one from 60 yards at the end of the second quarter vs the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

1 - Agree

2 - Agree

3 - Strongly agree

4 - Disagree - why?

5 - OK, but how do you get the ball out of the maul if it can't be transferred to the rear?

6 - No.  Five points is fine for a try, and conversions are often tricky enough so as to warrant a two-point reward.  The PAT in American Football is always taken from in front of the posts so one point is justified there.

7 - Ha ha, that'll never stop, no matter how much we might like it.

The greater the difference between the value of a try and the value of a penalty, the greater the incentive to prevent the try at all costs, usually by foul rather than fair means.  I realise that you're mitigating this slightly by reducing the value of the conversion, but even at level 7 we have a 70% goalkicker so this isn't going to make that big a difference.

Have they?  How many line outs are lost by the throwing in side?

The jiggery pokery of players running around from back to front and back again slows the line out down.

How often is won line out ball shipped directly to the backs, rather than gathered up the forwards?

 

2) 30 seconds for a kick at goal, not the age some take for re positioning the tee, twitching, staring up yo heaven etc.

See Bill Beaumont Cup 2007 when this was trialled - it was ugly. 

Devon won it by ignoring the rule and mauling anyway, just with a longer, thinner maul. Every attempted collapse took the head off and allowed an advance.

Or easy to administer I'm afraid. How would you tell a genuine injury from a tactical one?

I would go with reducing the number of replacements though.

1.I would suggest free kick at a scrum the team cannot ask for a reset but take the penalty. Taken quickly will speed up the game. 

2. Only penalties kicked from your own half can result in The team who took the penalty could throw in . 3. Penalties kicked to touch in opponents half result int he defenders throwing in. 

4. No charging into rucks and hitting stationery players.

I've been saying this for a long time, although my immediate counter-argument is that players will play on through the pain because they don't want to be stood down for the next two games - or maybe would be under pressure from their coaches to stay on for the same reason - and would cause themselves greater long-term damage.

Agree with the problems of players playing on injured. 

Without the need to stand down for subsequent games though all a player would need to do is tell the independent doctor that his neck aches and he needs to come off. The doc couldn't prove otherwise and would he be prepared to risk his professional reputation by telling a player he isn't really injured thus risking potentially serious injury?

Sorry but this idea just isn't sensible or practical.