mrfranco

Agree with all of those but the subs one (and I can see the logic in that one). I've argued for point 4 before, too. An easy improvement to make that adds to the chance of last-minute excitement and gives the team in possession one last chance to really chance their arm.

I corrected this with an edit pretty much instantly - you must have been very fast in response! Anyway, you get the point, score more tries than the oppo = win; score the same number of tries = if you kicked more conversions you win. Obviously, there are penalties as well, which I wouldn't change. I think we have their value about right (especially if you compare with the other lot). The point I was making, which should be pretty simple, is if you score more tries than the other team, you shouldn't be losing because of conversions. And at the moment that does happen.

Ouch, that's a low blow!!!

Ha ha! I've got the maths right but written it the wrong way round! The whole point of changing the scoring would be if you score more tries than the other team, you shouldn't lose because they got more conversions! So 3 tries should not beat 4, converted or not.

Conversions to be one point instead of 2 (tries to 5 points to keep total score for a converted try at 6). I think they're overvalued at 2 pts, they should be 1 pt like a DG, so that they are a reward for managing to score in the middle rather than out wide and/or having a good goalkicker, but would only be a decisive factor in really tight games (like DGs) and wouldn't stop teams scoring more tries from winning (e.g. currently 3 converted tries beats 4 unconverted, whereas in this system the conversions only make a difference on scoring the same number of tries).

Re: the stupid names... they actually seem to have fixed that this year (late in the season... they were still using the crazy names earlier on). Watch this video, they're now called Qualifier, Eliminators and Semi-Finals 1 & 2. Such a simple change but makes things much clearer!

As I understand if (from reading these forums...) little if any money changed hands in the BeIN deal... I believe BeIN paid for the cost of filming, etc., and Sky were happy to take their feed for every home game in return for giving BeIN the rights to show it in France. No money for Catalans or the Super League pot as a whole. Meanwhile, BeIN have pulled out for next year, so there is NO deal in place for the French games for next season. This is why I picked up Parksider on his constant berating of Toronto for not having a paying TV deal, when the French team we already have haven't been exactly filling up the TV money pot for Super League, and Toulouse don't have a deal either. It has to be said that the chances of getting a paid deal are surely better in SL - but that applies as much to Toronto as to Toulouse!

I'm all for Toulouse entering SL. And Toronto. And London. There was a natural opportunity this season to say "the two sides making the Championship GF will go up, and the bottom SL side should stay. We'll have a 14 team competition and get rid of the loop fixtures." And before you say it, Mr Parksider, Mr Elstone is on record this very week as saying that there are enough quality players for a 14-team SL, and that it is something that should be looked at, probably for 2022. Meanwhile, the reason I've quoted you here is to ask: why do you hold TWP and Toulouse to such different standards - specifically with regard to a TV deal? You're constantly berating TWP for not having a paying TV deal, yet what TV deal have Toulouse brought to the table? The only times we've seen them on TV was when Toronto were paying for it... Come to that, Catalans haven't exactly been bringing in bucketloads of TV cash either, have they? Cheap content for Sky, yes, and TV viewers like me have enjoyed watching Saturday early evening games live from Perpignan. But a big TV deal for the pot? Nope. And last I heard BeIN sport have pulled out for next season, so at the moment there is NO TV deal for the French games, paying or paid-for! It's fair enough to want all these glamorous clubs in exotic locations to come up with local TV deals. It's definitely something they and the game should be striving for. What's not fair enough is to use the lack of a paying TV deal for TWP (so far! - and their exposure in the local media has grown year on year, and there's no reason to expect that not to continue) as a stick to beat them with, at the same time as you let Toulouse off the hook because there's "a chance of a TV deal" (your words).

[ignore - not relevant post I thought better of]

Yes they are instantly knocked out if they lose - that's knock-out football, which for me is how play-offs should be. As for the reward for finishing 1 or 2... you get a week off and a home semi-final (whereas 3 & 4 get a home quarter-final then an away semi-final, and 5 & 6 have to win 2 away games against the top teams to reach the final)

My preference, of course, but I'd rather see something like: Week 1: 3 v 6, 4 v 5 Week 2: 1 v 4/5, 2 v 3/6 Week 3: Grand Final Knock-out football all the way, while still rewarding higher finishes with home games and an easier path to the final.

Yes, twice indeed. Though it may happen to a couple of fixtures... e.g. to use this year's Championship again... I fully expect to see Toulouse v York, then TWP v Toulouse, then Toulouse v York, then TWP v Toulouse. This def gives me at least something of a feeling of "what's the point?" to the initial versions of those games

Never been a fan of this system, for a number of reasons - although I do agree it is good that it rewards higher finishes in the table. Reasons I'm not a fan: 1. I don't like the fact that you can see the same game several times, it makes some of the early games feel a bit meh cos you're likely to see them again a bit later in the system, even to the point of "what's the point of winning this one?" e.g. the Toulouse vs York game today - is it really a reward to win that game? 2. The complexity! Have you ever tried explaining this system to anyone? It does take some effort to get your head round it. One good thing I've seen in the latest publications though is getting rid of the confusing finals and semi-finals labels used previously (maybe they make sense in Australia?). The use of "qualifier", "eliminator" and "semi-final" is much better. 3. I'm not sold on the second chances. If you're having play-offs/finals footy, it feels to me like part of the point is the games should be knock-out. Teams losing but then having another go the next week feels a bit of a damp squib to me.

I think the RFL certainly missed a trick by not giving the first team into the GF (i.e. the winner of the 1st vs 2nd/3rd game) the right to host it. I'm not a fan of the potentially repeated games either, for the kind of reason you cite, i.e. the games feel a bit like "what's the point in this game, we did it already 2 weeks ago"/"what's the point in winning this one, we'll be playing it again in two weeks". Personally I'd rather have something like 3 v 6 and 4 v 5 in week one, winners travel to 2 and 1 respectively in week two, winners play in the GF.

Was about to post pretty much exactly this. Spot on, OF!