By AAP
October 30th 2008 @ 1:06am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Super 14 finals expansion delayed
The Super 14 finals series will not be expanded until at least the 2010 season after the SANZAR nations were unable to agree on a format for the planned six-team playoffs.
The competition’s finals series was set to be increased from four teams to six next season but SANZAR announced today expansion would be postponed until 2010.
SANZAR also confirmed it would continue to trial the current Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) rather than adopt an expanded form of the laws.
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were unable to come to an agreement on either of the issues.
“These were major issues with major implications in the different markets and we could not reach a consensus on either issue,” said Andy Marinos, the acting managing director of SA Rugby, who doubles as the SANZAR’s managing director on a rotational basis.
“We would all like to have gone to a six-team play-off series in 2009 and accepted that principle at our July meeting in Perth, but we could not agree on the play-off structure that was to be adopted and, in the interests of SANZAR, we opted to remain with the status quo.”
Marinos also said the SANZAR partners were unable to agree a common approach on the ELVs and opted for the status quo.
“SANZAR was given IRB approval in May to further trial an expanded form of the ELVs and after reflection we have re-committed to that principle as an organisation,” said Marinos.
“The ELVs as applied in the Tri-Nations will continue into the 2009 SANZAR competitions - we’re smart enough and professional enough as rugby nations to adapt when we have to.”
The Super 14 season will kick off on February 13.
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(9)
We were talking about the important things in life, mainly sport.
Loading ...
Yikes said | October 30th 2008 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
At least this means the Waratahs won’t have to go to South Africa twice.
Still, I think they would have preferred a 6 team final.
Brett McKay said | October 30th 2008 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Yikes, the overwhelming preference was for a 6 team finals, but the format was the deal breaker. Aus and NZ wanted a logical top 6 finishers format, whereas SA wanted some hair-brained conference format, where the top 2 from each country qualified, regardless of where they finished!! If the top two Aus sides were 7th and 9th for eg, it would have meant SA or NZ teams finishing as high as 3rd missed out!!
Madness!!
Greg Russell said | October 30th 2008 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
There has been a lot of misreporting in the media about South Africa’s proposal for a top-6 playoff system, so I would like to clarify this.
Rather than just the top 6 teams being determined in finishing order, as Australia and New Zealand wanted, South Africa’s simple demand was that the first week of the playoffs would see a match played at the home of the top team from each country. For example, if a NZ team came first, an Australian team second, and the top South African team came 5th, then that South African team would host a playoff (and in effect be ranked third), as opposed to the actual third-placed team being ranked third.
What the media is commonly reporting is that South Africa were demanding that their top team be in the playoffs, regardless of where it finishes. For example, if the top South African team finished 9th, then it would be in the playoffs. Yes, this is implicit in the above, but the above is actually a more demanding proposal.
Taken strictly it is unreasonable, but how unreasonable is it really?
The first thing to say in its defence is that a South African team has finished in the top 6 every year of the S12/14. So the odds of this bringing a South African side into the playoffs from outside the top 6 are extremely low.
The second thing to say in its defence is that it cuts all three ways, not just South Africa’s. Believe it or not, but in 2001 there were no NZ teams in the top 4 of the S12. Were this situation to repeat, a NZ team would still host a playoff under the South African proposal. Similarly, a repeat of 2007 would see the Brumbies, who came 5th and were the top Australian side, host a playoff.
The third thing to say in its defence is that the South African proposal is a simple, clever solution to a major problem in Super rugby: that there is little interest in the finals in countries that do not host a final. By guaranteeing every country a final (as opposed to no finalist or a finalist playing across the oceans), interest in all 3 countries would be maximized.
Given the latter, it’s surprising that the pay-TV moguls did not force Australia and New Zealand to accept South Africa’s proposal. It is a proposal that looks very undemocratic, but in reality is only slightly undemocratic, and the advantages conferred by this quite possibly outweigh the (moral) disadvantages.
Incidentally, another advantage would be to heighten local rivalries, because there would be the competition within a competition for teams to finish top in their country.
Finally, does anyone know how South Africa’s top-6 system was to work in terms of who would be eliminated at each stage? I never heard that. I gather the proposal was for 6 teams in week 1 to be reduced to 4 in week 2 to be reduced to 2 in the week-3 final. How were 3 matches in week 1 to give 4 progressing teams?
Nick (KIA) said | October 30th 2008 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Why don’t the SA S14 teams just start winning some more games rather than making up weird rules to get more home finals games?
Also, this would distort games during the round robin phase, especially towards the business end of the season. What would be the point of the Waratahs trying to beat the Crusaders to move from 3rd to 2nd, say, if they were going to get a home semi anyway? And why would the Canes want to improve on 4th if the Crusaders were 1st? They’ll still have to travel for their semi.
Westy said | October 30th 2008 @ 9:39pm | Report comment
Greg Russell…..ah…Super 14 rugby…. always seeking the pursuit of excellence. The leaguies were crucified for their McIntrye system the South African would make us a mockery . You must only reward merit and consistency not substandard performance and geographical isolation.
Midfielder said | October 30th 2008 @ 10:28pm | Report comment
Greg
Taking your example in the expanded 14 team A-League with one team in WA, SA, Tassie, NT, with other teams in NSW & QLD, say the WA, SA, Tassie & NT all fill the bottom places ……… they would get into the finals ! ! !.
Every creditable football competition world over rewards teams that win the most by giving them places in the finals. Any other system is open to ridicule remember in Australia RL & AFL have conditioned Australians to think of finals this way …… so does the media ……..
Greg Russell said | October 31st 2008 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
In response to a couple of comments:
(1) I’m not saying I agree with the South African proposal. Rather I was just searching for the rationale behind it. A lesson in life is that people on the other side of the fence are usually not as stupid as they look. I believe that is the case with the South African proposal.
(2) Basically the South Africans are proposing a conference-like finals systems. Now where is it that we hear the word “conference” in sport? Of course it is in the USA. And what did we see there yesterday? The Phillies win the World Series. It’s interesting that their regular season win % of 56.8 only got them into the post-season because of the league they are in - were they a team in either the East Division (that of the Rays, Red Sox and Yankees) or the West Division of the American League, the Phillies would not have made the playoffs. Is there anyone today writing in America that they are undeserving champions because of this? To generalize this point: if a conference finals system is so stupid, why do the Americans use it in all their major sports?
Please spare me the jokes about George Bush, Florida chads, and so on, and just think about the two above points together.
Brett McKay said | October 31st 2008 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Greg, thanks for providing some clarity on this, I have to admit I made my comments based on what is being reported here and in NZ (yeah yeah, I know..)
So, if I’m understanding you right, SA just want to guarantee there’s a semi in each country in week 1?? If that’s the case, there’s probably some merit in the idea, especially as you say, to ensure interest in the semis in all countries. But what about if the situation arose where no SA sides made the top 6? Surely they wouldn’t still expect a game then? And surely Aus and NZ sides wouldn’t have to give up a home semi just so SA gets a game?
Aus and NZ’s format for the 6-team semis was 3 v 6 @ 3’s home, 4 v 5 @ 4, with the winners progressing to play 1 and 2 in the second week, at 1 and 2’s home grounds.
And to answer your last question, let me paraphrase your words: the conference finals system is so stupid, the Americans use it in all their major sports!!
Sorry, couldn’t resist…
Justin said | October 31st 2008 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
Lets give every kid a prize, there are no winners, lets not worry about keeping score. Fair dinkum what a load of sh^t. If you dont win enough games to host a home final then you dont deserve one. SA are kidding either way. You cant keep everyone happy all the time so if they are not interested in a final involving one of their teams that is at an overseas location then tough sh%t.
Poetic hey