Talks take place as Super League considers 2020 structure change

[Firestarter]

This will suite leeds....... how convenient is that?

[nathan_rugby]

Was the original top 4 play off system put in place with the view that we would have fans back in stadiums? If so and this is a response to realising that isn't a reality and making it more appealing and meaningful for the teams and tv watchers then fair enough.

I only hope it doesn't disadvantage the teams at the top who have worked hard to finish in the top 4.

You shouldn't be able to finish 5-8th, win a couple of games and win a grand-final, there should be a cut off where you literally have to beat almost every team above you to win it.

[Mike]

Not really fair to 9th placed team IMO. If they'd have known earlier they could have gone all out for that next place. Put them all in.

[morley pie eater]

Purely as an example: the top 5 could have a week off, and straight knock-out for 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9.
Then straight knock out for 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6 and 4 v 5.
Then semis 1 v 4, 2 v 3.

[The booze hound]

Not really fair to 9th placed team IMO. If they'd have known earlier they could have gone all out for that next place. Put them all in.

Either stick to the top 4 or put them all in.

[nathan_rugby]

Purely as an example: the top 5 could have a week off, and straight knock-out for 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9.
Then straight knock out for 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6 and 4 v 5.
Then semis 1 v 4, 2 v 3.

Looks terrible.

Teams finishing 1st and 2nd could effectively have 1 play-off game against a team finishing 10th or 11th, losing and thats it.

[the pieman]

IMO they should stick with what they are currently running with and the top 4. I think most had accepted the %age win rate as the league fixtures may not all be fulfilled, and on that basis it was a fair compromise to complete the season.
However, in most seasons clubs have nothing to play for once we get to the back end of the season, so why change it now because the system had been disjointed and SKY (assumption) want to see competitive games.
If we get a normal season next year, will there be the same request to abandon the league, because someone doesnt like it. Sorry but this one isnt for me and yet again proof that the RFL or whoever running the game is clueless

[morley pie eater]

Purely as an example: the top 5 could have a week off, and straight knock-out for 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9.
Then straight knock out for 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6 and 4 v 5.
Then semis 1 v 4, 2 v 3.

Looks terrible.

Teams finishing 1st and 2nd could effectively have 1 play-off game against a team finishing 10th or 11th, losing and thats it.

Hi Nathan.

I did say "purely as an example" so don't feel the need to defend the system. However, I do think your objection is extremely weak. So one of the top two could have the benefit of a week off, and then lose to Hull KR or Wakefield? You get decent odds on that one!

And if that is an acceptable reason for rejecting a play-off system, pray tell what you suggest. The only alternative I can think of that fits your criterion is that the top 2 teams, protected against any chance of failing to get to the final, just play each other.

Oh, and the trophy goes to 1st regardless of the result, just in case anyone says it wouldn't be fair for them to lose.

[nathan_rugby]

Purely as an example: the top 5 could have a week off, and straight knock-out for 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9.
Then straight knock out for 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6 and 4 v 5.
Then semis 1 v 4, 2 v 3.

Looks terrible.

Teams finishing 1st and 2nd could effectively have 1 play-off game against a team finishing 10th or 11th, losing and thats it.

Hi Nathan.

I did say "purely as an example" so don't feel the need to defend the system. However, I do think your objection is extremely weak. So one of the top two could have the benefit of a week off, and then lose to Hull KR or Wakefield? You get decent odds on that one!

And if that is an acceptable reason for rejecting a play-off system, pray tell what you suggest. The only alternative I can think of that fits your criterion is that the top 2 teams, protected against any chance of failing to get to the final, just play each other.

Oh, and the trophy goes to 1st regardless of the result, just in case anyone says it wouldn't be fair for them to lose.

In our old play-off system:
1st played 2nd and the winner went straight through to the final.
The loser than played against the winner of the play-off games between 3rd and 6th place if I recall and the winner of that went through to the final.
Seemed a fair way to me as you got more advantage the further you finished up the table and could only win overall by beating everybody above you pretty much.
Seemed to work well until

[Mike]

Top 5 was the best one. You can extend the Top 5 second chance system right down to 8 or as far as you like if you have enough rounds.

I liked it because the 5th placed team had to beat every team above them in order (if results went the same way as the table positions) to win the GF.