Error in the Champ Playoffs Format?

[Andrew Foster]

I’m confused as to why, while most of the playoff fixtures reward the highest placed side with a lower placed opponent, the following do not

This week: 3rd played 5th and 4th played 6th. This seemed to have a material impact, as Oldham (3rd) lost to Widnes (5th) while Doncaster (4th) romped home against Barrow (6th).

Next week: 1st play 4th but 2nd play 5th

What’s the rationale? Why penalise the sides finishing 1st, 3rd and 5th by making them play (on paper) more difficult opponents than each of the teams directly below them?

This page on the RFL website seems to confirm that Widnes are not taking Oldham’s 3rd placed seeding. 
 

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/64483/play-off-system-confirmed-for-betfred-championship

 

Anyone able to explain? Appreciate it’s likely to be rendered academic by London’s dominance, but I’d still be interested to know why this format has been used. 

[Hopie]

All the knockout games are highest rank plays lowest rank, with the other two playing each other. That seems to be a decent idea?

My understanding is the other games are formatted that way to try and avoid repetition of fixtures.
(It is not as if the league table is an accurate measure of teams level given the uneven fixture lists)

[Spidey]

If I’m reading it right - If Widnes win next week v Newcastle they’re at home regardless of opposition 2 weeks after. If they lose they have a second chance, then ranking comes back into play. 

[Tommygilf]

I want to see the sheer size of the fag packet they came up with this on...

[Andrew Foster]

8 hours ago, Spidey said:

If I’m reading it right - If Widnes win next week v Newcastle they’re at home regardless of opposition 2 weeks after. If they lose they have a second chance, then ranking comes back into play. 

Yep, I think so. If Widnes win and Doncaster lose but then win the following week, then Widnes will be at home and Donny away.

[Andrew Foster]

8 hours ago, Hopie said:

All the knockout games are highest rank plays lowest rank, with the other two playing each other. That seems to be a decent idea?

My understanding is the other games are formatted that way to try and avoid repetition of fixtures.
(It is not as if the league table is an accurate measure of teams level given the uneven fixture lists)

Best attempted explanation I’ve seen so far. But I think if the playoffs go to league table form from here then London will end up playing Doncaster at home twice, and Doncaster will host Barrow twice. 
 

Week 2

Qualifying Final 1 – 1 (London) v Highest Ranked Qualifying Semi Final Winners (Doncaster)

Qualifying Final 2 – 2 (Newcastle) v Lowest Ranked Qualifying Semi Final Winners (Widnes)

Elimination Final 1 - Highest Ranked Qualifying Semi Final Losers (Oldham) v Lowest Ranked Eliminator Winners (Hurricanes)

Elimination Final 2 - Lowest Ranked Qualifying Semi Final Losers (Barrow) v Highest Ranked Eliminator Winners (Sheffield)

 

Week 3 

Winners of Qualifying Final 1 & 2 – through to home semi finals

Sudden Death Play Off 1 – Highest Ranked Loser of Qualifying Finals (Doncaster) v Lowest Ranked Winner of Elimination Finals (Barrow)

Sudden Death Play Off 2 – Lowest Ranked Loser of Qualifying Finals (Widnes) v Highest Ranked Winner of Elimination Finals (Oldham)

 

Week 4

Preliminary Final 1 – Highest Ranked Qualifying Final Winners (London) v Lowest Ranked Sudden Death Play Off Winners (Doncaster)

Preliminary Final 2 – Lowest Ranked Qualifying Final Winners (Newcastle) v Highest Ranked Sudden Death Play Off Winners (Oldham)

TLDR: the format only needs one result going against league table form to undo its attempts to avoid repeat fixtures, and it necessarily disadvantages teams placed 1st, 3rd and 5th.

 

If you had a consistent format, then you might get repetition of fixtures, but you also might reasonably expect that to be disrupted by away wins like the one Widnes managed.

[Archie Gordon]

Nah. Not even the RFL could be this hopeless.

[Deadcowboys1]

3 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

Nah. Not even the RFL could be this hopeless.

Love the smell of sarcasm in the morning! 

[Worzel]

3 hours ago, Andrew Foster said:

If you had a consistent format, then you might get repetition of fixtures, but you also might reasonably expect that to be disrupted by away wins like the one Widnes managed.

I don't see how anyone can argue that avoiding repeat fixtures is more important than rewarding teams for league positions they've earned across the season. Shocking this if they've chosen to prioritise the former.

[Deadcowboys1]

40 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I don't see how anyone can argue that avoiding repeat fixtures is more important than rewarding teams for league positions they've earned across the season. Shocking this if they've chosen to prioritise the former.

I suppose stupid is as stupid does!

[Sports Prophet]

13 hours ago, Andrew Foster said:

Anyone able to explain? 

The decision makers are either morons or terribly misguided on what constitutes a credible format… or most likely… all of the above.

[OriginalMrC]

It's a ridiculously convoluted format which makes little sense. 

[Coggo]

Do we know where the Grand Final will be played on 4 October?

[Coggo]

In other words, will it be at a neutral venue or will it be at the home of the 'Highest Ranked Winner of Preliminary Finals'? 

[Widnes1989]

London. 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

It's a ridiculously convoluted format which makes little sense. 

What, from the bloke who brought us the "middle eights" and made play-offs between some poor Super League sides and part-time Championship teams the focus of the end of the "elite" season? Surely not!

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Coggo said:

Do we know where the Grand Final will be played on 4 October?

It will be at the home of whichever other northern team is located closest to the finalist that is playing against London. For that truly neutral feeling. 

[Coggo]

Just now, Worzel said:

It will be at the home of whichever other northern team is located closest to the finalist that is playing against London. For that truly neutral feeling. 

Ah yes. The 1895 System.

[dkw]

Maybe they can use the system from the 2018 promotion play off between Swinton and Workington, where they hadnt really thought about it, so got them to do a live coin toss to decide 

 

[the man]

My understanding is that after the weekends results Doncaster are now ranked 3rd, Widnes 4th and Oldham 5th.

If this weekend goes to the highest ranked team then week 3 would be Doncaster v Barrow and Widnes v Oldham.

If Widnes were to beat Newcastle they would take 2nd ranking and Newcastle 3rd so the fixtures would be Newcastle v Barrow and Doncaster v Oldham , assuming London beat Doncaster 

 

 

[Tommygilf]

19 minutes ago, the man said:

My understanding is that after the weekends results Doncaster are now ranked 3rd, Widnes 4th and Oldham 5th.

If this weekend goes to the highest ranked team then week 3 would be Doncaster v Barrow and Widnes v Oldham.

If Widnes were to beat Newcastle they would take 2nd ranking and Newcastle 3rd so the fixtures would be Newcastle v Barrow and Doncaster v Oldham , assuming London beat Doncaster 

 

 

That actually hurt my head reading that

[Andrew Foster]

1 hour ago, the man said:

My understanding is that after the weekends results Doncaster are now ranked 3rd, Widnes 4th and Oldham 5th.

If this weekend goes to the highest ranked team then week 3 would be Doncaster v Barrow and Widnes v Oldham.

If Widnes were to beat Newcastle they would take 2nd ranking and Newcastle 3rd so the fixtures would be Newcastle v Barrow and Doncaster v Oldham , assuming London beat Doncaster 

 

 

Not saying you're wrong - but interested where this understanding came from?

On the RFL page explaining the system, there's no explanation of how the teams are ranked. So I took it as implied that ranking was derived from the final league table.

 

Appreciate that it does not explicitly say that, but of the two options, that seems the one least likely to be thought to need further explanation. If rankings changed during the course of the playoffs, you'd have thought that would be made clear.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/64483/play-off-system-confirmed-for-betfred-championship

Has there been an update that I've missed?

[Deadcowboys1]

13 minutes ago, Andrew Foster said:

Not saying you're wrong - but interested where this understanding came from?

On the RFL page explaining the system, there's no explanation of how the teams are ranked. So I took it as implied that ranking was derived from the final league table.

 

Appreciate that it does not explicitly say that, but of the two options, that seems the one least likely to be thought to need further explanation. If rankings changed during the course of the playoffs, you'd have thought that would be made clear.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/64483/play-off-system-confirmed-for-betfred-championship

Has there been an update that I've missed?

I hear the LTA having heard about this will introduce it next year as they like the idea of floating seeds each round. 

[the man]

35 minutes ago, Andrew Foster said:

Not saying you're wrong - but interested where this understanding came from?

On the RFL page explaining the system, there's no explanation of how the teams are ranked. So I took it as implied that ranking was derived from the final league table.

 

Appreciate that it does not explicitly say that, but of the two options, that seems the one least likely to be thought to need further explanation. If rankings changed during the course of the playoffs, you'd have thought that would be made clear.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/64483/play-off-system-confirmed-for-betfred-championship

Has there been an update that I've missed?

I sought clarification from the RFL before the playoffs began and that was the answer I was given. I have asked them to put out a statement because there's confusion amongst coaches, players and CEOs. 

 

 

 

[dkw]

Apparently figuring out this system is going to be a question on the Only Connect tv quiz show.