mrfranco

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!

Am hoping the Broncos will prove everybody wrong one more time... but I think Rervers will have too much. Shrewd move appointing Tony Smith.

Or Austin is out for a while

Big cricket market, no away fans, no local players, etc. etc.... plus even the beer garden's a bit of a no-no...

I've always thought this too. And it really brings it home to you when you have to try and explain the format to newcomers. What really amazed me was the number of people who cheered the re-introduction of this system on the basis that the middle 8s plus MPG was "too complicated"...

Let's see what actually comes out of the meeting... BUT no other sport would even be discussing this mid-way through the season. It's doing a disservice to amateur sports to call it an amateur decision! And to all those saying "all major finals must be at a neutral venue"... we have that for the GF and the Cup final, but it's by no means set in stone or something we always do. The equivalent game for the last 4 years has been the MPG, which was hosted by the top qualifier. The CC semis are always at a neutral venue, but the SL semis are not. We are not consistent on this. And of course it's not something that other sports always do either - someone above pointed out an English football example (e.g. Warrington Town last season hosted their own playoff final - which of course was lost...). Traditions vary across sports and levels e.g. in N American sports Toronto won the NBA finals via a series in which the higher-ranked team gets more home games (albeit it was their away form wot won it), whereas New England won the Superbowl to be crowned NFL champs - a game at a neutral venue. When the Brisbane Broncos or the Storm play in the NRL GF, it's in Sydney. And may well be against a Sydney team. There's not just one way to do things. Personally, I think the best system for the promotion final is for hosting rights to be won on the field - which is the system apparently in place... but there's a case for a neutral venue final, and that would be fine too. What certainly is not fine is deciding that half-way through the season.

Indeed. I hope Matt is correct!

This would be the best way to do it with this playoff format, IMHO. Still not seen it anywhere official, and KMan reckons it's hosted by the finalist who finished higher in the league

You did indeed K'man - was responding to the post I quoted!

Yes, but the one thing it conspicuously does not say is the answer to the OP's question - where will the Championship Grand Final/MPG be played?