Wellsy4HullFC

It's definitely doable. But just because we can does not mean we should. Going in headstrong with little strategy and oversight could be wasteful and damaging. Is this high risk high reward?

I don't want to go to 15 teams. I think it's unnecessarily complicated. I'd tolerate it as a way to get London in IF it was worked out well in advance. But it's not, so it's a terrible idea that will be poorly implemented. It's too late to go to 15. You either accept that London need to wait a year, or we look at other ways to fit them in the 14 and remove a club. We don't even know if they're picking based on top 14 IMG grades or top 12 + 2 committee picks. The latter would be how you'd get London in.

You're asking 6 clubs to give up a home game last minute (and likely a big home game if it's MW). Will they be compensated? If not, they're not going to.

No return of the Skolars?

PVL must have really liked that song

No, you don't take the ranking of the team you beat. That's not how it's ever worked. The highest ranked winners will get the home final. The rankings change as the playoffs progress. Currently, they are: 1. London 2. Newcastle 3. Doncaster (as they won in week 1) 4. Oldham (as they lost in week 1) So Oldham will not get a home final no matter the outcome. Newcastle or Donny will only get a home final if London lose. London are guaranteed a home final if they win. Hope that helps somehow! It's an overly complicated system that needs binning!

And yet completely expected when anyone actually read what was proposed. 5 weeks got a playoff series between 10 teams is too long, the format too confusing for no purpose whatsoever. I would love to know how this strategy was decided and who gave it the okay.

Can Scotland and Ireland claim players produced in the Southern Highlands and New Ireland?...

I was going to say, that's probably more impressive as it stops the chance of someone overtaking him by simply only taking kicks from bang in front!

It's not been clarified, hence the confusion. The playoffs determine the end of season rankings; the regular season does not. We know this already. It's by extension that they are worked out as the playoffs progress. But without clarifying it, there's obviously a lot of confusion. They obviously didn't realise when extending the playoffs by an unnecessary and undesirable extra week that there'd be these logistical issues and thus didn't consider them. What would make sense would be to put out a statement clarifying, but I think they fear that would expose how inept this system they've come up with is and they're choosing silence for that reason.

The issue was that this system was usually a 4 week system, so the re-ranking element wasn't really an issue as it never extended far enough to matter; the end of season rankings and the re-ranking through playoff progression never conflicted. But as we've seen (not helped by the stupid logic of unfair seeding at the start), the re-ranking and the regular season ranking of the middle bracket teams conflicts if you extend it out further.

I never said anything about winning an opponents rankings. Widnes (5th) didn't win Oldham's ranking (3rd). Think of it like this: Regular season rankings: 1. London 2. Newcastle ---------- 3. Oldham 4. Doncaster 5. Widnes 6. Barrow ---------- 7. Sheffield 8. Midlands 9. Whitehaven 10. Batley Rankings after Wk1 for Wk2. 1. London (bye) 2. Newcastle (bye) 3. Donny (top rank winner of qual.) 4. Widnes (2nd rank winner of qual.) ---------- 5. Oldham (top rank loser of qual.) 6. Barrow (2nd rank loser of qual.) 7. Sheffield (top rank winner of elim.) 8. Midlands (2nd rank winner of elim.) ---------- 9. Whitehaven (top rank loser of elim.)* 10. Batley (2nd rank loser of elim.)* *Final Rankings Rankings after Wk2 for Wk3: 1. London (top rank winner of qual.) 2. Newcastle (top rank winner of qual.) ---------- 3. Doncaster (top rank loser of qual.) 4. Widnes (2nd rank loser of qual.) 5. Oldham (top rank winner of elim.) 6. Barrow (2nd rank winner of elim.) ---------- 7. Sheffield (top rank loser of elim.)* 8. Midlands (2nd rank loser of elim.)* *Final Rankings Rankings after Wk3 for Wk4: 1. London (bye) 2. Newcastle (bye) 3. Doncaster (top rank winner of elim.) 4. Oldham (2nd rank winner of elim.) ---------- 5. Widnes (top rank loser of elim.)* 6. Barrow (2nd rank loser of elim.)* *Final Rankings Rankings after Wk3 4 for Wk5: 1. Top rank winner 2. 2nd rank winner ---------- 3. Top rank loser* 4. 2nd rank loser* *Final Rankings Final Rankings after Wk5: 1. Winner of final 2. Loser of final 3. Top rank loser of Wk4 eliminator 4. 2nd rank loser of Wk4 eliminator 5. Top rank loser of Wk3 eliminator 6. 2nd rank loser of Wk3 eliminator 7. Top rank loser of Wk2 eliminator 8. 2nd rank loser of Wk2 eliminator 9.Top rank loser of Wk1 eliminator 10. 2nd rank loser of Wk1 eliminator After week 3, Oldham went above Widnes in the rankings, but not above Doncaster. Doncaster had a higher ranking going into this round due to Oldham losing in week 1 and dropping to 5th ranking for week 2. It's a week-by-week ranking system, so when it says the highest ranked, it doesn't mean from the final table, it means from that stage of the playoffs. Oldham are ranked below Doncaster now. It makes logical sense how they work out the week-by-week rankings, but it's majorly overcomplicated, and the illogical fixtures in the first 2 rounds causes further confusion. Because Oldham were illogically given a more difficult path than 4th despite finishing 3rd, as a result of that loss, they travelled an even further difficult path. Bin it after this fortnight please.

I "think" because Oldham lost in the first round, they went into this round ranked 5th. Doncaster went from 4th to 3rd. Widnes went from 5th to 4th. Oldham dropped from 3rd to 5th. Barrow remained 6th. So London will play 5th ranked Oldham. Newcastle will play 3rd ranked Doncaster. I think...

Bottled it again. FFS Wahs.

You've not left many options there. No shield. No circle. Don't change the rhino. Don't change the font at all. What's actually left?