KSA Shark ©

SARU lose both SANZAR battles

Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :In the news, Super 14, Tri Nations on 29 Oct 2008 at 10:08
Tagged with :

The Super 14 finals series will not be expanded until at least the 2010 season after the SANZAR nations were unable to agree on a format for the planned six-team playoffs.

The AAP reports that the competition’s finals series was set to be increased from four teams to six next season but SANZAR announced today expansion would be postponed until 2010.

SANZAR also confirmed it would continue to trial the current Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) rather than adopt an expanded form of the laws.

Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were unable to come to an agreement on either of the issues.

“These were major issues with major implications in the different markets and we could not reach a consensus on either issue,” said Andy Marinos, the acting managing director of SA Rugby, who doubles as the SANZAR’s managing director on a rotational basis.

“We would all like to have gone to a six-team play-off series in 2009 and accepted that principle at our July meeting in Perth, but we could not agree on the play-off structure that was to be adopted and, in the interests of SANZAR, we opted to remain with the status quo.”

Marinos also said the SANZAR partners were unable to agree a common approach on the ELVs and opted for the status quo.

“SANZAR was given IRB approval in May to further trial an expanded form of the ELVs and after reflection we have re-committed to that principle as an organisation,” said Marinos.

“The ELVs as applied in the Tri-Nations will continue into the 2009 SANZAR competitions – we’re smart enough and professional enough as rugby nations to adapt when we have to.”

The Super 14 season will kick off on February 13.


  • Yes! Got what I wanted on both scores

  • Comment 1, posted at 29.10.08 10:18:04 by robdylan (CC Champ '08) Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Rob wth do you want more ELVs with the Lions tour approaching?

    Also…I wouldn’t say they LOST the battle over the S16 issue. It’s clearly a stalemate.

  • Comment 2, posted at 29.10.08 10:23:38 by klempie Reply

  • @robdylan (CC Champ ‘08) (Comment 1) :

    Nooooooo dude.

    it would have been to our advantage BIG time if we played the world ELV’s instead of the S14 / 3N ELV’s.

    Now our players have to play the S14 and 3N under one set of Laws and then change to a different set of Laws for the lions tour. ;sad:

    Also Now the McCaws, Smiths, Elsoms and Waughs of the world will only be giving away FKs at rucks for the whole S14 instead of giving away PKs.

  • Comment 3, posted at 29.10.08 10:24:04 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • @klempie (Comment 2) :

    Would still have been a S14 but the Play-off would have been 6 teams not 4.

    Stalemate is the rosy way of looking at it.

    IMO they didn’t get what they wanted so they lost out. 😉

  • Comment 4, posted at 29.10.08 10:25:30 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 4) : Yeh but neither did NZ and Aus…therefore stalemate/draw.

  • Comment 5, posted at 29.10.08 10:28:33 by klempie Reply

  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 4) : Oh and it wouldn’t have been a S14 with a 6 team knockout phase. Everything I’ve read has pointed to adding two more teams.

  • Comment 6, posted at 29.10.08 10:29:32 by klempie Reply

  • @klempie (Comment 6) :

    No No that is a completely different issue that is still ongoing.

  • Comment 7, posted at 29.10.08 10:32:09 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 7) : So what are the two issues they “lost” then?

  • Comment 8, posted at 29.10.08 10:37:37 by klempie Reply

  • The free kick business I don’t like. Unless they start dishing out yellow cards after the first few offences. I fear the free kick only is not enough of a deterrent.

  • Comment 9, posted at 29.10.08 10:41:47 by McLovin Reply

  • Not so sure about the 6 team play off either. Will have to see it in action first.

  • Comment 10, posted at 29.10.08 10:42:49 by McLovin Reply

  • @klempie (Comment 2) : I think the free kicks make the game more fun to watch. I’m being completely selfish about this

  • Comment 11, posted at 29.10.08 10:49:07 by robdylan (CC Champ '08) Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @klempie (Comment 8) :

    The first is the ELVs, that bit you understand. 😉

    The 2nd is that they wanted a 6 team play-off with the top team from each country getting a spot. The other guys decided they wanted the top 6 to qualify. So they reverted to the top 4 only playing a Semi and final.

    A 3rd issue not being discussed here is a different one regarding the S14 expansion in 2010.

    http://www.sharksworld.co.za/2008/10/28/sanzar-at-a-stalemate-on-super-14-top-six-play-off/ (last line of the article)

    For more background on the initial expansion plans.

  • Comment 12, posted at 29.10.08 10:50:09 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • @McLovin (Comment 10) : It must be similar to something like the Cricket World Cup Super 6/8. The teams carry through the points they gained during the group stage and only play the teams they didn’t play during the group stage. Then top 4 go to semis or maybe top to go to final.

  • Comment 13, posted at 29.10.08 10:54:24 by klempie Reply

  • two

  • Comment 14, posted at 29.10.08 10:54:53 by klempie Reply

  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 12) : I disagree. My understanding is that the expansion to 16 teams is DEPENDANT on the agreement of the top six. It’s one and the same issue. You yourself said

    “The Super 14 finals series will not be expanded until at least the 2010 season after the SANZAR nations were unable to agree on a format for the planned six-team playoffs.”

  • Comment 15, posted at 29.10.08 10:57:38 by klempie Reply

  • @klempie (Comment 13) :
    That’s the way i would suspect a top 6 play-off would work.

    1, 2 get Home Semi’s and a weeks rest.

    While 1 & 2 are resting
    3 plays 6 (Winner plays 2)
    4 plays 5 (Winner plays 1)

    Winners of the above, play in the final with the highest placed team getting the Home Final

  • Comment 16, posted at 29.10.08 10:59:20 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 16) : So for the 6th placed team to win the have to win 3 knock out games away from home. Would take some effort.

  • Comment 17, posted at 29.10.08 11:01:44 by McLovin Reply

  • What would be the point of fiddling with the current format for 14 teams? There isn’t one. Hence it is not the issue. The reason they are squabbling over the top 6 is because it is what is required in order to accommodate two more teams. The league stages will have to be split into two separate pools like the Currie Cup was back when there weren’t two divisions. There is no way they will be able justify all the travel required for one pool of 16 teams. The most logical format would be two pools of 8 teams and the top three of each goes to the next round carrying their points through. Then they each play all the teams from the other pool. Top 4 go through to the semis.

  • Comment 18, posted at 29.10.08 11:02:40 by klempie Reply

  • My understanding is that the expansion to 16 teams is DEPENDANT on the agreement of the top six. It’s one and the same issue. You yourself said

    I DID??????????????? 😯 ❓ 😯 ❓

    What that DOES say is that the Super 14 FINALS (Play-off if you wantto use another word) will not be expanded until 2010. Not the Super 14 Series.

  • Comment 19, posted at 29.10.08 11:02:47 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Wouldn’t the extra play off mean more travel? Isn’t that what Saffa teams would like to avoid?

  • Comment 20, posted at 29.10.08 11:03:05 by McLovin Reply

  • @McLovin (Comment 17) :

    All the 6 team play off does is give the table topping team even more of a chance.

    I cannot see any other way of implementing the 6 team play-off unless the S14 is played in conferences (SA v SA only, Aus v Aus only, etc.) and then the top 2 from each conference (country) go through to play against the top two from each other country.

  • Comment 21, posted at 29.10.08 11:06:05 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • saru won because they avoided the super 6 playoffs that would have put the lions tour in jeopardy as bok players would be to tired. it was always going to go this wasn’t it? no one expected any big changes next year except for the elv’s. but at least mauls will be kept.

  • Comment 22, posted at 29.10.08 11:07:48 by try time Reply

  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 19) : OK fine. I misread you. But still, everything I have heard points to the fact that they are only going to expand the playoffs when they expand the series.

  • Comment 23, posted at 29.10.08 11:08:29 by klempie Reply

  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 21) : but surely that defeats the whole purpose?

    The current Super 14 is fine… why can’t they just leave it alone?

  • Comment 24, posted at 29.10.08 11:10:20 by robdylan (CC Champ '08) Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 21) : I think my format in 16 makes the most sense of anything.

  • Comment 25, posted at 29.10.08 11:10:31 by klempie Reply

  • 18

  • Comment 26, posted at 29.10.08 11:10:48 by klempie Reply

  • @robdylan (CC Champ ‘08) (Comment 24) : My point exactly.

  • Comment 27, posted at 29.10.08 11:11:15 by klempie Reply

  • @klempie (Comment 25) : btw – you’re wrong. The 6-team play-offs and 16-team competition are two completely separate issues

  • Comment 28, posted at 29.10.08 11:16:51 by robdylan (CC Champ '08) Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (CC Champ ‘08) (Comment 28) : So you’re telling me that they want a one pool 14 team competition with a 6 team playoff? They’re dumb but they’re not *that* dumb.

  • Comment 29, posted at 29.10.08 11:20:12 by klempie Reply

  • @klempie (Comment 23) :

    Look, they (expansion and change in play-off format) will now in all probability happen at the same time but there is no chance they would have expanded the S14 next year already. The top 6 play-offs were being negotiated for next season.

    None of the articles on the top 6 play-offs mention the expansion of the series for next season in the same breath, one actually mentions it as ANOTHER problem.
    http://www.sharksworld.co.za/2008/10/28/sanzar-at-a-stalemate-on-super-14-top-six-play-off/ (last line of the article reads) Another problem looming for SANZAR is that they cannot agree on the proposed expansion for 2010.

    For more background on the initial expansion plans PLEASE go and read this.

    If there was ANY chance of a team from any country being added to the Super series for next year, the media would have been FULL of speculation on who this team are and their new signing etc. etc. But there hasn’t been one peep from the media on the subject.

  • Comment 30, posted at 29.10.08 11:21:07 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Okay I am off to lunch now.

    I am not sure which is more dangerous.

    My stomach imploding?
    My head exploding?


  • Comment 31, posted at 29.10.08 11:22:34 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 30) : OK well it looks like I was wrong then. My apologies. I just couldn’t fathom that anyone would want to make such a dumb decision. What are they getting out of an expanded playoff? Extra games? Because the only way it could work is if the teams played an extra 4 or 5 games!

  • Comment 32, posted at 29.10.08 11:27:38 by klempie Reply

  • @klempie (Comment 32) : Basically it would require like 18-19 weeks.

  • Comment 33, posted at 29.10.08 11:29:56 by klempie Reply


Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.