Sa team shouldn't be in playoff

[Kiwi_]

I don't remember those days because they didn't exist (I think we didn't have a team in the play-offs just once, 2001?). Every NZ team has been in a final and only 1 SA franchise has ever won it.

What I was getting at is they're weakening an already weak conference, by adding another team and allowing 2 weaker sides a cemented home QF at the expense of better teams in the competition.

I'm really not keen on relinquishing home advantage for the sake of letting worse teams get it simply because they're gifted this spot. If the quality was evenly spread throughout the conferences (at the top end, not just middle) then it would be a lot better. But what we've got now is a charity contest.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

I don't remember those days because they didn't exist. Every NZ team has been in a final and only 1 SA franchise has ever won it.

What I was getting at is they're weakening an already weak conference, by adding another team and allowing 2 weaker sides a cemented home QF at the expense of better teams in the competition.

I'm really not keen on relinquishing home advantage for the sake of letting worse teams get it simply because they're gifted this spot. If the quality was evenly spread throughout the conferences (at the top end, not just middle) then it would be a lot better. But what we've got now is a charity contest.

I understand where you're coming from but it's in the interest of growing the competition which increases revenue which can then be reinvested into growing the competition. What do you think of the NPC since it got changed into its current form from the old division 1 and 2 setup?

 

[Icemn]

LOL. But, okay, let me make another argument.

What legitimacy is there really to the bonus point system? So a team losses 12-5 and gets a BP or a team scores 4 tries but oses in an open 52-28 game and gets a BP.. seems pretty arbitrary to me or at least not more legit than the first three places going to conference winners.

Take away the bonus points and the Stormers retain their 3rd place and the Lions also come up into the finals at 6th at the expense of the Brumbies. Should SA really be penalized for playing a different less ball in hand brand or rugby that doesn't fit well with bonus points and what Australians see as entertaining or whatever? That on top of the travel factor and the fact we bring the majority of the cash to the table and have to suffer the inept performances of Aussie referees?

I have to say I am all for SA leaving SANZAR. If anything it might make SA meeting NZ and Aus in test rugby a little more spicy.

the way i see it is that if you score 4 tries or more you get an extra point... so this rule forces you (in some way) to want to score tries...

that is what the game of rugby is about or should be about...

but the south african thought... hey a win is a win, we dont need to score tries, we can "suffocate" the game and kick penalties whole day...

lets kill the game of rugby, for a win...

so please... leave the 4 try bonus point rule and stick to your game style of suffocation and see how further back SA get dragged

dont change the system because other nations evolve/adapt... if you wane stick to 1973 rugby tactics... please do...

i've said a few years ago that this conference system favours the weaker teams... but it actually makes the stronger teams stronger!

i believe that you only get better by playing the best!

in saying that, the NZ conference is the strongest and because of this conference system they now play each team twice...

SA has a weaker conference... so you are not making progress because you are not really struggling

nuff said

 

[andyInBlack]

Iceman, i couldn't agree with you more over the bonus point system and south africa's old style of rugby that focusses on defence, I believe it takes more courage to play attacking entertaining rugby like nz oz and to be fair the cheetahs do a great job of too - but you also put yourself in a more vulnerable position, it's riskier. That's why world cup knock out games are low scoring affairs - sadly, but I'd rather see the all blacks loose the world cup because someone like carlos spensor took risks, than to see them win it through penalties and become boring like the springboks.

the NZ sides in the super xv this year were leagues ahead of both sa and oz put together, I hope this rugby prospers.

By the way i am actually south african, but I support the running game before my own country

 

[Icemn]

Iceman, i couldn't agree with you more over the bonus point system and south africa's old style of rugby that focusses on defence, I believe it takes more courage to play attacking entertaining rugby like nz oz and to be fair the cheetahs do a great job of too - but you also put yourself in a more vulnerable position, it's riskier. That's why world cup knock out games are low scoring affairs - sadly, but I'd rather see the all blacks loose the world cup because someone like carlos spensor took risks, than to see them win it through penalties and become boring like the springboks.

the NZ sides in the super xv this year were leagues ahead of both sa and oz put together, I hope this rugby prospers.

By the way i am actually south african, but I support the running game before my own country

i agree with you 100%

The game of rugby has evolved into a faster game, teams (running mostly) have found ways to avoid the breakdown areas which slows down a game eg. offloads in tackles

The game itself's rules have changed to encourage scoring tries eg. 4tries + bonus point...

Now some teams not going to mention names *cough* springboks *cough* to mention 1... stuck to what they know... which i dont have a problem with...

but now they complain about the rules that is making the game to fast for their slow gameplan because they are being left behind by the pack who have evolved with the times...

and i have the same sentiment when it comes to football awell...

i respect the lions, cheetahs and griquas for the running style of rugby they play... and you can see the lions and cheetahs are actually starting to improve and the stampkar teams like the stormers/bulls and this year sharks are falling behind...

playing high risk rugby is what it is... the risks are higher but the reward is much bigger! that is why i support NZ and the canes... still not happy with the last +-15min of the 2011 RWC final though... not our finest hour... <_<

i hate this "win at anycost" type rugby that most Sa teams play esp the boks and i blame the fans... mind you, there are some SA rugby fans that actually want to see some running rugby form their respective SA teams... WP back in the day played some good running rugby... hell the junior boks play running rugby... but when it comes to senior level they go back to 1970 one-dimensional boring kick-chase territory game...

 

[JH1315]

The BP leads to attacking rugby. There are plenty of games which would be over after 70 minutes but the teams keep playing for that extra point.

And attacking rugby makes it easier to maintain viewers, yes? But so does having a SA team in the finals, if SA (or any nation) continually missed out on the finals then the country would become much less interested in the competition, so you don't make a good argument there.
The fact of the matter is, the attacking bonus point rule is nonsensical, they give credit to good attacking teams but not to good defensive teams. If both the conference rule and the attacking bonus point rule were erased then the crusaders would Make the finals, but ahead of the Brumbies not the Stormers.