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