I have seen it written on this and many other message boards that the play-offs are a lottery and are unfair. But is this really the case?

Almost inevitably, any move of this magnitude will attract a degree of opposition. After all, nobody likes change for change’s sake. However, it would appear that opposition from the clubs and supporters alike is more than the usual inertia and conservatism which could be expected to greet such decisions.

Our own beloved leader, Sir Cecil Duckworth’s objection to the play-offs has recently been widely reported. His principal objection appears to be that the play-offs place the newly promoted club at a disadvantage in the recruitment stakes on the basis that top quality players are less likely to sign for a club until they are assured of a place in the Premiership. And, with the play-offs not concluding until well into May, these top quality players will already have pledged their futures to the incumbent top flight sides. Now for obvious reasons I would not wish to call Mr Duckworth’s judgement into question for one moment. The scenario he paints is highly plausible and makes good sense. However, it is only valid up to a point. It works on one very large assumption - that being that if promotion was determined solely under the old ‘round robin’ system then we would have a clear cut winner in time for the club to compete for the signatures of the best available players. This may be true in some years but it is equally possible that promotion may not be determined until the last weekend of the season with 2, 3 or maybe more clubs challenging for the Championship title. Player recruitment would therefore be equally as tough as it would under a play-off scenario especially if some of the players alluded to had signed new contracts in January and February.

So, are the play-offs a lottery? A lottery is a pure game of chance with each entry having an equal likelihood of success with the outcome being determined by random draw. Quite clearly the play-offs are nothing like a lottery. I refer the reader to the evidence of season 2009-2010’s play-offs, the final of which was competed by Bristol and Exeter Chiefs. These two sides finished the ‘regular season’ in first and second place in the Championship table – evidence, should it be needed that the cream rose to the top. As we know, the final was won by the Chiefs who gained promotion. “Unfair!” cried the sceptics. “How can a team that did not win the league get promoted?” Well, the point of having a system of promotion is that the best team ultimately is elevated to the higher division. Quite frankly, I fail to see how even the most myopic of Bristol supporters could argue that the Chiefs were not the best team. They beat Bristol convincingly in both legs of the final. This must be good for the game. After all, what chance would a weaker team have of survival in the top tier.

But is this unfair? I would contend it is not. Every club knew the rules before the start of the season. The rules were not changed at mid-point to artificially favour one side over another. The strategy adopted by each club was not determined by the RFU and Exeter can be congratulated for choosing the most effective approach.

For me, rugby remains a meritocracy in which the best side will ultimately win out. If a team is good enough to gain promotion and have the best possible chance of survival it must first prove that it is the strongest side at the end of the season. If a club cannot beat its closest rival in a battle of the fittest how can they claim the right to the prize?

That seems fair enough to me.

Veston Pants

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

• Digg
• Delicious
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon