McIntyre System to live in dark recesses of NRL history
By Chris Chard, 24 Feb 2012 Chris Chard is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- David Gallop, McIntyre system, NRL, Rugby League
Manly Sea Eagles celebrate the try of Glenn Stewart. AAP Image/Dean Lewins
Related coverage
Kenneth Gordon McIntyre OBE was a man of many talents: author, lawyer, politician, historian, mathematician. It is with some shame, then, that his legacy in Australian popular culture appears to be inextricably linked with that of a maligned rugby league finals system.
And by maligned, I mean intensely despised.
Much like the night time Grand Finals that sent millions of small children to bed in tears at half time, the McIntyre finals system was a phenomena that appeared to only have the support of a powerful minority.
Here was a finals system so unloved that in its demise it had become the flatulent, native fauna eating, one-eared tom cat that nobody in the neighbourhood wanted to claim ownership of.
This can be seen by the press reports this week, all seemingly flick passing and handballing ownership of the system.
The papers have spoken of the NRL from 2012 adopting the ‘AFL’s final system,’ by which of course they mean the 95 ARL finals system.
In turn the NRL has dumped ‘it’s’ McIntyre system, despite the fact that the AFL and the VFL had in the past used versions of McIntyre previous to the NRL adopting it. For the casual sports fan, it’s all a bit confusing.
Fitting, as confusion seemed to be the overwhelming reaction to the McIntyre system. Many a frustrating September was spent rehashing the finals framework to inattentive work colleagues, trying to explain what next week’s games would be.
To which the only true answer was that ‘you’ll have to wait and see’.
This was an annoyance for spectators, but must have been a logistical and psychological nightmare for players and coaches.
Even the most cynical fan would have to feel sorry for the 3rd-6th placed losing sides, sitting around a TV at the leagues club following their match not knowing whether they should be ripping into training, or ripping into a carton of cold beers and fancy dress clothes.
Sports fans, by and large, crave simplicity, and rugby league can lay claim to being one of the simplest games of all. But, to be simple is to be great, and taking your finals system from a former mathematician who liked to explore Portuguese naval history in his spare time is probably over complicating things a little bit.
This is not to say intelligent minds should be driven away from rugby league. It’s just that, as lifelong Manly fan and world renowned author Thomas Keneally learned after the lukewarm reception to his ‘Blow that Whistle’ television ad, sometimes you just have to give the proles what we want.
So Mr McIntyre, on behalf of the rugby league fraternity, I would like to acknowledge your very successful life and crazy Portuguese conspiracy theories.
You were indeed a man who succeeded in many fields.
However, for mine, your finals system will serve a special place in the dark recesses of my rugby league memory, and will keep good company their with unlimited interchange, the 1997 NSW Origin jerseys and Wollongong Showground greyhound track.
And it looks to me like this time, the fans have beaten the system.
Chris Chard is a sports humour writer commenting on the often absurd nature of professional sport. A rugby league fan boy with a good blend of youth and experience taking things one week at a time, Chris has written for The Roar, Rugby League Player Magazine, US Sports Downunder, the QRL and People. Tweet him @Vic_Arious
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- David Gallop, McIntyre system, NRL, Rugby League

February 24th 2012 @ 1:36pm
Michael said | February 24th 2012 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
I don’t understand the criticism that no team outside the top four has won the AFL premiership. This is a sporting competition at the elite level, the teams that perform consistently well throughout the whole season have earned the benefits of finishing in the top four. If a team is genuinely good enough to come from outside the top four and when, then good on them – it will be a great fairytale story for all the fans to enjoy. But they shouldn’t be given help to get there at the expense of the the more consistent teams. Besides, a non-top four team winning the comp – and it will happen one day – will be even more of an achievement than it is today. The McIntyre system rewarded mediocrity over excellence. It was the wrong message to associate with an elite competition and the NRL should be praised for getting rid of it.
February 24th 2012 @ 2:46pm
Brett McKay said | February 24th 2012 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
Michael, when I mention this, it’s not as a criticism, but rather as a pointer to the unpredictability the McIntyre System brought. I do agree that this is elite sport, and designed to find the best team in the comp, and even that this new method is quite clearly geared toward the top four.
And that’s fine to do that, but if what a code wants is for the champs to come from the top four, then why bother with a top eight? Why not just play two semis and a final??
February 24th 2012 @ 4:15pm
Nathan of Perth said | February 24th 2012 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Whatever the benefits of unpredictability, the potential injustices are worse. It devalues the regular season as a whole.
February 24th 2012 @ 2:06pm
Jaredsbro said | February 24th 2012 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
No absolute bollicks
It’s fine to criticise the old system, but what we’re not really getting at here is the fact that the old system actually worked. You see I”m not nornally the type of guy who suports something just because of tradition (tho it is a very good reason to find in why we ought to do things) but the old system worked! It was complicated very true, but it allowed great expansion for the code…not just a re-modelled knock-out system where the trick is to be in the top 4.
Last year I came to the conclusion that the AFL’s current system is too generous on the top 4…which almost always disadvantages one of the main markets/growth markets for the code…this will make it harder to expand the game, pretty simple really.
February 24th 2012 @ 3:48pm
Pete75 said | February 24th 2012 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
” too generous on the top 4″
Eh?
So why bother actually winning games during the season? Scrape into eighth position being mediocre all season and then get an easy ride through the finals.
I don’t mean to be a code warrior, but the issue of a few teams regularly winning the comp is less of a concern in the NRL than in the AFL. The NRL competition is a lot more even, whereas in the AFL, there’s the top 3-4 teams and then daylight to the rest.
Don’t blame the finals system for that….
February 24th 2012 @ 4:04pm
Nathan of Perth said | February 24th 2012 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Yeah, this makes the season proper more relevant.
February 24th 2012 @ 4:47pm
Jaredsbro said | February 24th 2012 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
I’m not blaming it…not really! But it isn’t particularly helping. What I’d rather not have in Rugby League is a straight knock-out, or something closely resembling it…otherwise as you say there’s no point playing well until you’re in the eight at the end of the season.
But also the idea that the code is relying on these top 4 teams by in large goes against the notion that the comps supposed to be national or in the NRL’s case All-Australasian…this means some markets will miss out with a realistic chance. It improves chances, it doesn’t give anything to anyone a la the Warriors last year!
February 24th 2012 @ 4:59pm
sheek said | February 24th 2012 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Brett/Nathan,
I agree with Nathan here (sorry Brett). He has annunciated it well – the injustices of the old system far outweigh the advantages of unpredictability factor.
Realistically, if you don’t finish in the top 4 during 22-24 weeks of home & away regular season matches, then you really don’t deserve to win the premiership. You’re simply not consistently good enough.
And winning any comp, should reward quality of performance & consistency of quality.
Having said that, there will come the time when a team form the bottom 4 (out of top eight) who will win all 3 finals matches to claim the premiership. But we shouldn’t want it to happen too often.
February 24th 2012 @ 5:05pm
Nathan of Perth said | February 24th 2012 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
Yes, if you can’t fight your way in to the top 4 then it hardly seems just to make your claim for best team in the land (ostensibly adjudged by the Grand Final) on the back of a mere three games. If your team really is the greatest and just got done over by injury or what have you, then that is what 5-8th is for; you can perform the absolutely extraordinary to prove that falling out of the top 4 was simply a fluke of outside circumstances.
Also, this now gives you two narrative battles taking place at the end of the season. The battle for the Top 4 and the separate battle for the Top 8.
February 25th 2012 @ 1:31am
Stomping on Toovey's Face said | February 25th 2012 @ 1:31am | Report comment
question: why did we ever choose the McIntyre system in the first place?
Teams deserve to know going into a game whether it is sudden death or not
February 26th 2012 @ 4:36am
Queensland's game is rugby league said | February 26th 2012 @ 4:36am | Report comment
Here’s a 7 team play-off system that I thought up over the last 50 minutes. I don’t know if it’s a clone of the 7 team format that was used by the ARL in 1997, if so then my apologies to the ARL for coming up with an identical idea.
Week 1
Match #1
Major Qualifying Final
2 (Home) vs 3 (Away)
Match #2
Minor Qualifying Final
4 (Home) vs 5 (Away)
Match #3
Minor Elimination Final
6 (Home) vs 7 (Away)
Week 2
Match #4
Major Elimination Final #1
Loser of Major Qualifying Final (Home) vs Loser of Minor Qualifying Final (Away)
Match #5
Major Elimination Final #2
Winner of Minor Qualifying Final (Home) vs Winner of Minor Elimination Final (Away)
Week 3
Match #6
Semi-Final #1
Minor Premiers (Home) vs Winner of Major Elimination Final #1 (Away)
Match #7
Semi-Final #2
Winner of Major Qualifying Final (Home) vs Winner of Major Elimination Final #2 (Away)
Week 4
Match #8
Third Place Play-Off
Loser of Semi-Final #1 vs Loser of Semi-Final #2
Match #9
Grand Final
Winner of Semi-Final #1 vs Winner of Semi-Final #2
February 29th 2012 @ 12:43am
Queensland's game is rugby league said | February 29th 2012 @ 12:43am | Report comment
The minor premiers could play a “Best of the Rest” team during the second week of the finals. That way they’ll gain vital match practice ahead of their third week match.
February 27th 2012 @ 6:57pm
Kim Crawford said | February 27th 2012 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
Does anyone know the true origin of the system that has been adopted by the NRL? The AFL first used it in the year 2000, but the ARL previously used it in 1996 changing from the system they had used the previous year just weeks before the start of their finals series. Why the late change? I first sent this system to the AFL in 1994 telling them the problems that could arise with the McIntyre System and offering my system as a fairer and more easily understood system. They told me my “Crawford Final 8 System” would not work and that supporters would accept the McIntyre System and its workings. When I heard the ARL were going to use a Final 8 in 1995 I sent them my system but they opted for an alternate system that was two final 4′s with the winners playing off in the Grand Final. I spent 2 years telling the ARL the flaws of this system before they finally realised what I was telling them was correct and my system was far superior. When they started using my system they denied any knowledge of me sending it to them (Ihave letters that prove otherwise). When the AFL eventually switched to my system, after I had been promoting it to them for 6 years, they also claimed to have devised it themselves and gave no recognition for all the time and effort I had to put in to make these leagues realise it was the best system they could use. In the past leagues did recognise the people who devised their finals systems but this is obviously no longer the case. Should they be allowed to tell these lies or should we expect honesty from these National Sporting Leagues. They impose high standards of behavior from their players, coaches, clubs and supporters so maybe they to should have high moral and ethical standards. I know other people lay claim to this system but I have all the documentation that proves I was the first to send it to both leagues. What do you think Chris? Is any of this important? Should leagues recognise the efforts of people who try to help them or simply ignore them and claim credit for themselves?
February 29th 2012 @ 12:42am
Queensland's game is rugby league said | February 29th 2012 @ 12:42am | Report comment
Kim,
The leagues should give credit to the persons who devise these system.
March 19th 2012 @ 5:16pm
Chris Chard said | March 19th 2012 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
Hi Kim
Sorry for the stupidly late reply, somehow it slipped through the net.
Yours is an interesting tale, don’t really know what to say. Obviously with McIntyre the man who came up with the system has gotten the credit for creating the system, and you would assume anyone else who came up with a final system would be eligible for some credit if they had proof.
In saying that though I have been privvy to similar situations where an individual has sent in an idea to the league or an individual club, only for that idea to be adopted without any recognition. Unfortunately these things are almost always too hard to prove and not worth it in the long run, but sometimes just some acknowledgment and a couple of tickets would be nice for your effort.
This is something that seems to happen more often now that ideas are more easily exchanged via fans and clubs via social media sources. I guess the other way to do it is to float your ideas in another format (i.e. the Roar!) before sending them off . That’s unless you want to star in a Today Tonight interview…
All the best with it eh,
Cheers
CC