Hasn't that got more to do with them being vacuous bores who can't make it onto a decent television channel?

Leeds chief executive Gary Hetherington says he will help decide the defending Super League champions' semi-final opponents.

[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/09/22/RUGBYL_Leeds.html[/url

'[iSunday's historic press conference will be broadcast live on both Sky Sports News and the BBC at 1.30pm.[/i'

Impressive television attention.

I find myself hoping it'll be like that Pokeymon thing, and Hetherington shouts "Skints! I choose you!" and then throws one of those little balls at Mick Potter, which Rob Burrow then falls out of.

Potter could lob one with Eastmond in it.

It'll be great. [iWith the pokey and the mon, and the .[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHFYJO9v5Xg.[/url.[/i

BBC Radio Leeds, Humberside and Manchester with the national highlights put on at 02:33 unless the repeat of Have I Got Old News For You overruns in which case you will find it by standing on one leg and directing your aerial towards to south east at 11:56 on Monday night on the 31st of September.

The 10-8 game at KR in 2007 was a terrific game - that bored you senseless?

It was one of the toughest and most intense super league games ever played!

And still stands alone now as one of the best leeds saints games.

utterly utterly redundant

It decided one of the Grand Finalists, how can that be redundant?

Think we've got some crossed wires here.

Think maybe we ought to go back to the top six formula, as at least the top two cannot miss the final by having one bad game. One used to go through, the loser would have another chance. Leeds have been the best team this year, but they could miss the final on the back of one bad game. That couldn't happen before, as there had to be two bad games.

Depends when they have their bad game.

theres no room for ''bad games'' when it's knockout. If you can't produce the good you aint champion material.

same as before, can afford a bad game in week 1 but not after that.

Under the old formula, they either went through or had a second chance. Now, one blip in the game the week before will see them out. Just makes the reward for finishing top more debatable, particularly as they have to stoke the fires with club call.

And the 'best' team shouldn't be having bad games.

Exactly. It always surprises me how many people think the champions should be decided based on who loses the least games, instead of who wins the biggest game. If a team cannot get to and win the Grand Final they are simply not good enough.

why does there need to be some huge ridiculous advantage to finishing top?

you get a LLS (the worth of which is debatable granted) a home playoff tie to begin with AND a second bite at the cherry. Oh and yeah AND you choose your semi final oponents.

If you can't make the grand final with those advantages you're not good enough when the pressure is on top spot or not.

That's more than ehough advantages for a potential championship team. Especially when half the teams that make up the playoffs are knockout from week 1.

As a leeds fan i don't really ask for much more. You know the rules at the start of the season either you produce the goods or you don't.

When has the history of the game counted for anything? I thought Rugby League was impervious to tradition in a constant desire to evolve itself out of a paper bag. A casual understanding of the first 'play off' era was a natural coercion of two separate county leagues, rather than this contrived anti-climax.

For about three years (I may be exaggerating … but it continued for decades after the end of the two county leagues)


[size=50ps: I think you mean consequence

[/size

As a top four knock-out not where losers get rewarded with another game at home!!!!

Can't be *rsed to read the rest of yet another whinging topic about the people that run the game and the play-off system that is bad because the poster doesn't understand it, so I'll just read the opening post and reply to that...

Ask how many of your football fans understand the qualification process to the European competitions, and see if that bothers them...

If I understand correctly, unless there were four different leagues that fed into the knockout comp then there would be little benefit to finishing top?

There is no perfect system. You compromise on fairness or excitement. I wouldn't swap the current RL system for the dreary trudge to the top of the Premier League's perennial top four Champions League cartel. Fair enough we could be on for a third straight Leeds-Saints final, but they've done it under a salary cap that is genuinely constraining for a few and that the rest can get close to.

Even the Champions League is cack until the new year. Lots of sensible fans who don't buy into the Sky hyperbole realize this and would admire [iparts[/i of the RL approach.

FWIW my ideal system would be top 7 qualify (ie the top half), to retain interest in the absence of relegation. Top place gets a bye, 2nd thru 7th play-off in three knockout games (2nd, 3rd and 4th getting home advantage). The winners go into the semis with the top placed team. Every game is knockout, only better than average teams qualify and you've got the potential for surprise.

We should embrace the unexpected not view it as a aberration denying the best team their glory. If you don't mind a foregone conclusion and just want to see merit rewarded go watch the Harlem Globetrotters batter the Washington Generals, or Chelsea or Manchester United picking on little clubs like Everton or Aston Villa.

The benefit for finishing top was that you got a home game versus the 4th team and the s 2nd team was at home to the 3rd team just as it is now but the losers didn't get a second chance.

Don't have too many problems with the system apart from the 'lub Call.' Think the biggest problem with it is the possibility of week 3 having two repeat fixtures from week 1 should it be HKR and Hudds who qualify.