Play-offs could be expanded
19 May 2008
Sharks coach Dick Muir is the latest coach to back the expansion of the Super 14 semis.
It has been reported that SANZAR officials have been considering the move due to the logjam for semi-final places – and Muir has agreed with this sentiment – even though his team confirmed their play-off place on the last weekend.
“I think this competition is crying out for a quarter-final round,” Muir told The Witness.
“After 13 rounds of competition it is tough to cut it back to four teams. I would love to see the play-offs expanded to involve more teams.”
“We had to pick up five points in each or else we were gone,” said Muir, talking about his team’s final two fixtures against the Cheetahs and Chiefs.
Blues coach David Nucifora said that he would also like to see the number of teams increased after his team finished in sixth spot.
“Four teams out of a 14-team competition is tough. It comes down to this every year, and probably a six-team finals play-off would be a better scenario,” Nucifora told rugbyheaven.com.au.
45 Comments
20 May 2008, 07:57 am
Sure, but expand the competition then to either a 20 team comp with Japan, Argies and South Sea Islands included, or with a second division with a relegation – promotion scheme.
20 May 2008, 07:58 am
It’s an interesting idea but I still don’t see how six-team finals would work. Wouldn’t it need to be eight teams?
20 May 2008, 08:01 am
Next week we will be told that they players are tired and play too much rugby.
20 May 2008, 08:11 am
#3 Loosehead:
Loosehead.
Exactly mate!!
I cannot understand this at all.
This type of tight nail biting finish is exactly what the fans want!!
Why change it?
Unless the franchises are looking at how much more money they will make!!
Would be interesting to ask the paying public what they think.
20 May 2008, 08:15 am
I also don’t get how a six team final would work.
….and 14 teams is just not enough to justify a bonafide quarter-final of 8 teams.
I would consider 2 leagues of 7 or more, with the top 2 from either league playing off against each other home and away.The location of the final could be decided by the most bonus points accumulated or also , home and away.
or expand the competition by 2 extra teams.(Pacific Island,Fiji,Zim,whatever)……and then have 4 leagues of 4 teams playing each other home and away.This would really even the playing field.
The top 2 from each league then go into a quarter final knockout stage(if you want to make the ozzies happy).
or just the top team from each league going into a semi final, which would be better in my opinion….also home and away.
The final could also be played home and away.
As I see it…a team would play a couple fewer games even if they won the entire competition albeit there would be more travelling involved.Finally there would be some sort of even playing field withregards to south african teams and travelling.
20 May 2008, 08:33 am
Hi everyone
I have been reading this blog for the last 2 years and decicided to join. I don’t know if this has been discussed before, but what I can’t understand about rugby is why does a losing team get a bonus point if they loose by 7 or less. I don’t see the point. Why should they get a point ? Would it not be better to give 4 pts for a win, and 1 bonus point for every 3rd try scored. At the moment a team that scores 9 tries gets the same reward as a team that has scored 4 tries, whitch does seem unfair. Reward those who make the game exciting to watch.
20 May 2008, 08:35 am
….it gives them motivation to still try and stay in the contest when they are getting pummelled.
20 May 2008, 08:43 am
Could you imagine near semis a few teams in contention knowing that they need tries to make it, and the other teams knowing that they need tries to avoid dropping out of the semis. They should also make penalties and drop kicks 2 pts. Team A scores 3 unconverted tries and loose to a team B with 6 penalties. That sucks!!!
20 May 2008, 08:48 am
Its fine as is. This is just a ploy by the franchises to buffer their coffers. Play for fourth and above or you get nothing has been working fine. Just because DN and DM were at risk of not qualifying are they backing this enlargement. I am a Sharkie but to be honest, if we hadnt made it to the semi’s then the teams that did deserved it over us. We would have tried again next year, and so it should go.
#6 Zoula- good point mate
20 May 2008, 08:50 am
#9 ruggaluvva: Thanks, but how do we get the message to the idiots running this game ?
20 May 2008, 08:53 am
Stop bitching and get on with it – Top 4 teams qualify finished and klaar – it is a competition after all.
20 May 2008, 09:03 am
#8 Zoula: If you concede 6 kickable penalties, you don’t deserve to win.
20 May 2008, 09:08 am
#10 Zoula: Additionally: The Objective of a Rugby team is to score more points than the other team, not more tries.
A try rewards you better than a penalty and is more spectacular but that is exactly it – spectacular as in spectator value. It often takes as much work to get in your opponent’s 22 to set up the drop goal or force the penalty.
Look at the following scenario: Team A has 80% territory and ball. They score no tries but force 6 penalties due to dominance. Team B score three intercept tries that goes unconverted. Who is really the better team now?
20 May 2008, 09:08 am
Expaned S14, expanded Tri-Nations. Sooner or later the players are going to know each other so well the games will become stale.
The S14 is a great competition, but as a spectator, I would prefer to see fresh ideas. Don’t thrash a good thing to death.
20 May 2008, 09:10 am
#10 Zoula: Sadly, us, the viewing & PAYING public have no painless way of getting our views to the top echelons of the game. All we can hope for is that they make the right decisions for the game
20 May 2008, 09:11 am
#12 King Shark: My point is rugby is about scoring tries, not kicking penalties. What about this stupid law where the team is penalised when a player knocks on and a player in front of him picks up the ball. The other team gets a penalty, possibly 3 points if kickable and they were not even in posession of the ball. Rather give a free kick.
20 May 2008, 09:11 am
#8 Zoula: In rugby you have 30 angry men on the field attacking each other, piled on top of each other trying to get the ball. Sure, in football the ref has to contend with the all-important offside rule and plenty of hollywood flops but it’s nothing compared to rugby. If you make penalties worth 2 points it’s a lot easier to make a cynical foul in front of the posts than give away a 7 pointer. I used to agree droppies aren’t worth 3 but i haven’t seen enough games ruined by them to really think it needs changing.
20 May 2008, 09:12 am
#13 King Shark: Agreed, but it still sucks!
20 May 2008, 09:18 am
#16 Zoula: Sure, there are some instances where they can review the particular situation such as the mentioned.
Also realise that by kicking the penalties, the other team starts getting under pressure, allowing you to score tries more freely. As spectator I would also like to see more tries, but I’ll take a penalties based win anyday rather than a try-rich loss.
The thing with penalties, particularly with the ELV’s, is that players need to think more and behave more intelligently. If they know the rules (eg don’t pick up that knocked ball) etc then they would not het penalised as often. The refs also use discretion in certain instances – example deliberate vs accidental knock down etc.
20 May 2008, 09:20 am
Would love to continue our conversation guys, but have to go present on ISO (which I know virtually buggerall about) to our Manco… See you in a couple of hours.
20 May 2008, 09:21 am
This whole debate was started by Nucifora because the Blues beat the Hurricanes and still failed to qualify for the semis.
So what if there is a logjam of teams at the end of the round robin stage vying for the top 4 spots, that is exactly what made the S14 so exciting this year. Expand it to 6 and teams will realistically be able to throw the odd game and still make the play-offs. Currently teams cannot afford to lose games.
Leave as is.
20 May 2008, 09:23 am
Good for rugby. I support them all the way.
20 May 2008, 10:19 am
I still think the S14 and the Tri-Nations need a major overhaul. Expanding the S14 to Argentina, Japan and the Islands is the obvious way to go, with maybe 4 groups etc and the top 2 teams from each going through to the quarters and so on. Then the next year they take the bottom 2 teams from one group and put them with the top 2 teams from another group. The beauty of the S14 though is that everyone gets a chance to play each other once but then it is all repeated in the Tri-Nations, same players same travellng, yawn.
20 May 2008, 10:25 am
#4 tight head:
hi Tighthead – finally we agree on something!!
this just smells of money making… **** said they had to pick up 5 points in each of his last 2 games to make the semi’s?? so what??? does he not realise in a quarter final round you will be out of the competion if you dont win 1 game..!!! no matter what your points.
imagine the situation of a team finishing top of the log or 2nd of the log, ahead by a country mile on log points, only to lose in a quarter final game and not make the semis… I promise you that the following monday the coach will be calling for doing away with the extra round and stating the top 4 teams should go straight thru…
simple answer = play better in the competion, amass the log points and make the semi’s = easy ! stop looking for back doors now to get in.
20 May 2008, 10:31 am
#24 stephen:
Morning Stephen.
Yes, you sum it up well.
We want to see tight finishes, where only the best can survive.
20 May 2008, 11:03 am
It’s not 1 April is it?
This suggestion ranks up there with the best of them.
If one were to have a quarter-final stage, 8 teams would qualify, more than half of the complete field, and theoretically the team finishing 8th can actually win it. The team who tops the log, having delivered a consistently high performance level through 14 long weeks can be eliminated at the QF stage. With present structure, the team finishing 4th out of 14 winning just seems to be more acceptable, if not ideal.
True league type competitions will always be the best indicator as to the best performer through the duration. Knock-out type structures are simply employed to add to spectator excitement and the resulting financial boost.
Sorry, this would transform the Super 14 into a competition that rewards mediocrity rather than excellence, a bit like CC and VC.
20 May 2008, 11:05 am
What **** doesn’t seem to realise he has justified the use of the bonus point system for four tries. How can u complain about having to play positive attacking rugby. I guarantee you if the Sharks had only needed 8 points we wouldn’t have seen the games we did the last couple of weeks, they would have been drab boring affairs.
As for expanding the S14 the players play too much rugby as it is, would be purely a commercial decision that could potentially back fire. Can someone please explain to me how a “6 team finals play off” would work?
20 May 2008, 11:11 am
sour grapes
20 May 2008, 11:24 am
#6 Zoula:
Zoula it was pretty much about getting the teams to play flat out all the time, so within 7 points often takes a lot of effort, ie it stopped teams rolling over.
20 May 2008, 11:32 am
St.Petersburgbok
May 20th, 2008 at 8:35 am
….it gives them motivation to still try and stay in the contest when they are getting pummelled.
———————————————————————————–
It would work better in my opinion that if you were to lose by more than 15 you get a point deducted rather than gaining a point for losing by less than 7.
Imagine the Canes vs Blues game if that was the case!
In fact there should be a sliding scale
e.g. Lose by >15 deduct 1 pt
Lose by >25 deduct 2 points
This would force sides to play their strongest teams and prevent teams from concedeing defeat against the Crusaders by playing a “B” side and effectively gifting the saders a BP.
20 May 2008, 12:01 pm
(3) Argies, (2) Samoa, (2) Tonga, (2) Fiji & (3) Japan to be included in a revamped series of 24 teams.
- 4 groups of 6 teams
- Top 2 of each group going through to quarters.
Financial sustainability of these squads (bar Japan) may be an issue. Look to broadcast holder of Super – / 3N rugby to inject the much needed cash together with IRB. Having however these number of squads ensures rugby growth in each country.
20 May 2008, 12:30 pm
Further to #31, games are reduced if teams face each other in the pools only once. That’ll mean 5 group games, quarter, semi, and final – 8 games. Alternatively, home-and-away, 10 pool games, quarter, semi, final – 13 games (as much as the current round robin matches) to conclude the competition. Less games = less player burnout.
20 May 2008, 12:37 pm
#29 4man: Ok, makes sense, but change the 4 try bonus point to 1 point for every 3rd try
20 May 2008, 12:37 pm
I think the promotion format used in football in engeland would work well…..the top six teams qualify for the next stage with positions 3,4,5 and six on the log playing knock-out games (3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5) in order to progress.
The two teams that finished 1st and second on the log should not have to play an additional knockout game as they deserved to be top of the log over the course of the season. The winners of the 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 games will then play the top two teams in the normal semi final games which would then determine the finalists……
I think that could work!!!!!
20 May 2008, 12:40 pm
Quarter finals would mean 8 of 13 teams qualify for the play offs. Then you have the problem that teams that win a few games knock out a team that has won a lot of games. That isin’t fair either. A team that has preformed well throughout the tourny could lose on one day.
20 May 2008, 12:51 pm
Why not go overboard and have a world wide competition?
SA 6
NZ 6
Aus 5
Arg 3
*** 1
Fiji 2
Tonga 2
Samoa 2
England 6
France 6
Wales 3
Scotland 3
Ireland 4
Namibia 1
Italy 3
USA 1
Romania 1
Potugal 1
Total Teams 56
Have 4 pools with 14 teams in each.
20 May 2008, 12:53 pm
Leave it as it is. If you want to play in the semis, finish in pos 1 – 4. Work for your top 4 place finish. You want a home semi or final, GO GET IT !!!
20 May 2008, 12:54 pm
Bet the Stormers would love that!
20 May 2008, 12:55 pm
#5 St.Petersburgbok:
Here is a possibility
1 & 2 placed teams will take a 2 week
3, 4, 5, 6 play each other and the winners of these will play 1 & 2 as a SEMI the following week.
20 May 2008, 12:58 pm
#39 wallabie.:
“1 & 2 placed teams will take a 2 week break”
20 May 2008, 13:06 pm
Good as is
20 May 2008, 13:24 pm
What a kak format… and one needs 8 teams for a 1/4 final system.
The Stormers, Blues, Chiefs and Force had their opportunities to get into the top 4 and didn’t take them, so they wont be competing for the title. That’s how life works. No place for loosers
20 May 2008, 14:16 pm
The competition should change more to a UEFA sort of thing were the top 4 clubs of x amount of country go throught to. That will make your domestic league also a lot stronger then it is not a given that they will play super rugby. They have to work for it.
20 May 2008, 14:29 pm
This is the way it is and it is fine. The S14 season is already long enough. It would for example be terribly unfair to a team like the Crusaders that was consistent all season to now play a team like the Bulls that was mostly **** but suddenly found late form (the Bulls may just knock the Saders out if they have to face each other now).
Get the S14 over and bring on test rugby!
20 May 2008, 19:25 pm
I admire **** but this is call about commercialism and not about rugby.
Personally I think
* that if you can’t finish in the top 4 then you have no right to challenge for the trophy. I would not be against the idea of having 1 plays 2 and thats it.
However semis is OK but quarters is ridiculous
* the S14 is too long as it is. I reckon they should increase it to 16/18 sides in 2 pools of 8/9 (18 may be impossible)
Then the top 2 in each pool play eachother in the semis.
That will reduce the total number of games and allow for a better international tour or improved Currie Cup or expanded Tri Nations (4 sides).
It is also better for world rugby development.
That gives us the opportunity to include the Argies and/or Pacific Islands
Including the Argies works against short term cmmercialism. But its better for the game in the longer term
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.