I haven't read anything about that. Hope it's not true because, like you, I hate the idea of bonus points.

if someone is so far adrift that they can't qualify from 8th they should have done better in the previous 23 rounds. I would think that the point of this new system is so you have to put effort in to getting results all year instead of just at the end

I recall having a similar debate a few months ago with a fan of ones of those teams around 8th place on the VT who complained that the system was poor as his team could most likely enter that top 8 period 10 points adrift and very little chance of making it up in the extra remaining games thus they were meaningless games.

The obvious reply to him was don't find yourself 10+ points adrift in the first place. Think it's sadly eneviatable that in 12 months time we'll see threads on the VT with fans of the 7th/8th teams complaining they can't catch the top 4 when the split down to 8 happens.

I agree with a 12 team SL and P+R but that's as far as it goes for me.
Imo the Play Offs should be top 5/6 with top spot playing just 1 game at home to get the GF (in a 5 team P/O).
I also think this bottom 4 SL playing top 4 Championship is loaded way too much in favour of the SL teams again rewarding failure and adding fixtures for the sake of it.
For me the top team in the Championship comes up automatically and replaces the bottom team then 2nd plays 2nd bottom in the "Do or Die" final with the winner getting a SL spot.
On a slight detour I'd also make it compulsory for SL teams to run an u23 team with the allowance of 3 over-age players included.
Then it would be u18's u16's & u15's at that level I'd introduce the Yorkshire and Lancashire cups and also a war of the roses series.

I have said the same thing myself previously, and wholeheartedly agree with this. It just makes complete sense. The roses series is a no brainer for me, and for the cup if not Yorkshire/Lancashire then a challenge cup at those levels, with a finals day for all three age groups on the same day and venue.

As for tough if they are so far behind. What is the point of the new structure then? they are behind now and will be then, so why change. If one from below does manage that higher up then it will be the expense of someone higher. I bet the same people on here saying tough now, won't be preaching the same if it was Leeds. The whole point of the season is the Grand Final, so why restrict to just four teams.

As for tough if they are so far behind. What is the point of the new structure then? they are behind now and will be then, so why change. If one from below does manage that higher up then it will be the expense of someone higher. I bet the same people on here saying tough now, won't be preaching the same if it was Leeds. The whole point of the season is the Grand Final, so why restrict to just four teams.'"

And what about the dead rubber extra seven games in that scenario, which is what we are talking about? you do understand the structure don't you? if you want a top 4 for the play offs, then all fine, but don't bother with the extra 7 games then, just go as finish after 23 rounds.





I think the idiot part is the only part that fits your name, so best leave where is.

We probably wont see them moaning because by that point they will likely have given up on the season and wont bother with it.

We can moralise about it, we can just tell clubs to be better, doesnt really matter if people dont watch the games. Its far more likely, almost certain that mathematically the super 8's will be dead rubbers for some sides, and pretty much all of them quite quickly.

Even this year which is relatively very competitive and close at the top, there are 6 points between 1st and 5th, in a 7 game league that can very quickly become unbridgeable, there are 9 points between 8th and 4th. Within 2 games that can become an impossibility.

Exactly. And going back a few posts here, as Gareth said, just as we seem to have got it working.

The new concept of the play offs just don't make sense, unless you go with the top 4 from the end of 23 rounds.

I agree BUT if that system was in place this season we'd be 2 points clear at the top

RFL still discussing it with the clubs

I've just seen something about it online.

Absolutely hate the principal of rewarding a losing team.

I also loathe it when posters say what I am bout to say and accuse them of massive over reaction but I'm not sure I'd be interested in watching that "sport".

Total agreement. And with the last bit also.

I too hate the idea of rewarding the losing team, however if it made for more close matches going down to the wire then I could be persuaded to reconsider.

Listened to Super League exec on Radio Leeds just now. The question re bonus points is going out to fans over the next 2 months for their opinion(how ??) I get the feeling we will have it next season

Did it work like that in the championship? I am sure what you mean is high intensity matches with nothing held back. What you actually get is boring wrestling tactics and not stop messing about at the play the ball, just to stay within two scores.

I too want games to be competitive and close but think this is a bit of a short cut.

I actually think, when you look at some of the surprising results this season (just look at last weekend's results) we're already getting there without the need for this nonsense.

I don't think so.

Suprising results still only occur when the better team plays crap. In the NRL you get suprise results and the teams are going set for set, offload for offload, break for break, hit for hit. Let's say you tune in to London v Wigan on sky, for london to win you basically need wigan to have an awful completion rate, a soft defence and to generally not seem 'up' for the game.

I guess super league is getting better in comparison with itself years ago in the sense that if someone is off their game there is a much greater chance of an upset than there used to be.

I like the look of new structure. Theres going to be more crunch games and it will be harder to win the title. Gone are the days you can through half the games, beat your rivals a couple of times and pretty much be guaranteed a grand final place if you finish in the top 2.

I think there's been an acceptance of 30 or even 40 points against as somehow 'OK' for a long time in SL. As a result teams throw in the towel way too early, and don't seem to play for the full 80 minutes. What you see more often in the NRL is losing teams at least bashing away until the last 5 minutes - and that quarter of a game is often when we see scorelines explode.

IMO that's almost the number 1 reason why one-sided games are less common even when on paper teams are clearly mismatched, and its nothing to do with P&R, franchising or anything else - its a different mindset.

I see your point, but I think it is very much to do with P&R. At the end of the day points difference rarely matters so much, but fatigue does. If your realistic chance of getting league points is gone, why bust a gut to make the score flattering, when that energy and effort could be put towards winning next week's game? With the luxury of no relegation you can throw yourself into a lost game, as there is no long term penalty.

THe problem with this approach is that losing is a habit, and if you are getting pumped by 30-40 each week it becomes very hard to turn around, and players confidence is shot, and are beaten before they go onto the pitch

There has been no P&R in Super League for many years but that has not stopped blow scores?

I think Brisbane is correct it is about a professional ethic and pride in performance, too many SL players throw in the towel when a win appears unachievable.

I've said it before and will say it again, easiest way to stop blow out scores. Move to quarters.

Caught much of NZ warriors this season? I've watched quite abit to check up on Tomkins, and they would literally put 50 points on the best super league has to offer.

They are 9th in the NRL.

Conrad hurrell is a beast, they must feed him raw meat, he'd smash through Watkins like a rag doll.

Sometimes, one team is 30 or 40 points better than the other on that given day.

Frankly I think it's an insult to the players to suggest that those kind of gaps come about purely because they can't be bothered.

Still, if we want to introduce more gimmicks to the sport until it becomes virtually unrecognisable...

Not sure about that.

Scorelines blow out because a team can have a purple patch where they may score 3/4 trys in a short space of time. That could still happen in quarters.

A team could be awful in one half, but also in two quarters!