How premiers were decided in the 1930s?

[pennywisealfie]

What's with having the Grand Finalists play two games and the winner of the 2nd game is considered the premiers of that season?

I was having a glance over results in the 30s and around the time and I saw that the grand final teams sometimes played twice. I thought maybe it was done over two legs and the winner would be the team that wins on aggregate like in football, but it seems like there's a match called the Final and a match called the Grand Final Challenge and I have no idea why they even play the "Final". Nobody seems to have progressed or have been eliminated by having won or lost in the match.

NSWRFL 1932 - Results - RLP

List of all match results from the 1932 NSWRFL.

www.rugbyleagueproject.org

Are there any David Middleton types out there able to shed some light on this?

 

[Marshall_magic]

What's with having the Grand Finalists play two games and the winner of the 2nd game is considered the premiers of that season?

I was having a glance over results in the 30s and around the time and I saw that the grand final teams sometimes played twice. I thought maybe it was done over two legs and the winner would be the team that wins on aggregate like in football, but it seems like there's a match called the Final and a match called the Grand Final Challenge and I have no idea why they even play the "Final". Nobody seems to have progressed or have been eliminated by having won or lost in the match.

NSWRFL 1932 - Results - RLP

List of all match results from the 1932 NSWRFL.

www.rugbyleagueproject.org

Are there any David Middleton types out there able to shed some light on this?

if the minor premiers did not win the premiership they would play the team who did.

for a modern example, if the same rule was applied in 2021, the Storm would get a shot at the Panthers after the grand final. In 2020 the Panthers would have gotten a second crack at beating the Storm. In 2010 the Dragons won the first go around so would have been named premiers on the day they were.

 

[ayatollah_murdoch]

Very interesting! Thanks for the explanation.

 

[flippikat]

Yeah, the whole 'right of challenge' concept seems awfully generous to the minor premiers.. "Hey, if we lose any time in the playoffs, including the GF, we get a 2nd chance!"

 

[pennywisealfie]

if the minor premiers did not win the premiership they would play the team who did.

for a modern example, if the same rule was applied in 2021, the Storm would get a shot at the Panthers after the grand final. In 2020 the Panthers would have gotten a second crack at beating the Storm. In 2010 the Dragons won the first go around so would have been named premiers on the day they were.

Wow, interesting. Thanks for that.

 

[Danish]

Yeah, the whole 'right of challenge' concept seems awfully generous to the minor premiers.. "Hey, if we lose any time in the playoffs, including the GF, we get a 2nd chance!"

These days it would be a great system given the season is so long.

it would also be nice to make the minor premiership worth something again so that teams don’t just aim for top 4 and start resting players in the last 3-4 rounds.

 

[nick87]

I believe the premiers back in those days were determined by the apex of the national top ball team

 

[Munky]

These days it would be a great system given the season is so long.

it would also be nice to make the minor premiership worth something again so that teams don’t just aim for top 4 and start resting players in the last 3-4 rounds.

Would need to get rid of mid season Origin and play every team twice though.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Was a money making exercise too.

 

[Valheru]

if the minor premiers did not win the premiership they would play the team who did.

for a modern example, if the same rule was applied in 2021, the Storm would get a shot at the Panthers after the grand final. In 2020 the Panthers would have gotten a second crack at beating the Storm. In 2010 the Dragons won the first go around so would have been named premiers on the day they were.

Was that the exact method? I thought there was only a 2nd match if the minor premiers got beat in the GF? For example, Storm wouldn't have got a crack last year because they lost prior to the GF?

Perhaps by definition minor premiers made the GF back in those days?

 

[hunters]

Was a money making exercise too.

Those damn 1930's TV rights!

 

[Fangs]

Those damn 1930's TV rights!

Wireless rights mate.

 

[Captain Apollo]

The followiong is from https://afltables.com/rl/snotes.html

Finals systems
---------------
From 1908 to 1994, teams could not be excluded from the finals by points difference,
and a mid week playoff (or playoffs) were held to decide the semi-finalists.
With the expansion of the finals in 1995, playoffs were discontinued, and points
difference (points scored minus points conceded) became the tie breaker.


1908-09 / Top 4
- Top 4 played an extra round, the most competiton points played the decider.
1910-11 / Top 2
- Top 2 played the decider (ROC) 1912-25,1937 / Top 1
- Most competition points - in the event of a tie, a playoff for the title.

1926-36,1938-53 / Top 4 (ROC)
- Week 1 - 1 v 3 (A)
2 v 4 (B)
Loser(B) eliminated.

- Week 2 - 1 v Winner(B) or
3 v Winner(B) (C)
If 1 wins in Game(A), it plays Winner(B) in the Final. A win here for 1 secures the title, a loss requires
a Grand Final between the same sides to decide the Premiers.
If 1 loses in Game(A), 3 plays Winner(B) for the right to play 1 in the Grand Final

- Week 3 - 1 v Winner(C)
Only played If 1 loses in Week 1 or 2
(Known as the Right Of Challenge [ROC], it ensured the minor premier had to appear in the deciding game.
In 1928, 1934, 1941 and 1943, top spot was shared by two or more teams. In 1928 and 1941, no minor
premiership was awarded, thus ROC was not applied. In 1934 and 1943 a playoff was used to determine
the minor premier and hence the ROC

1954-1972 / Top 4
- Week 1 - 1 v 2 (A)
- 3 v 4 (B)
Loser(B) eliminiated.

- Week 2 - Loser(A) v Winner(B) (C)
Loser(C) eliminiated.

- Week 3 - Winner(A) v Winner(C)

Hope that answers your question.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Those damn 1930's TV rights!

Yeah. Eyeballs needed for gate takings. All games were live, free to air. No replays though. Just had to be there to watch.

 

[siv]

The term Minor Premier was invented in 1926

It was given to the team who ended the season outright in 1st place

If 2 teams were equal first a MP playoff would occur and the winner would be the MP

If 3 teams ended equal on points no MP was awarded

If the MP lost in either semi or the final they had the right to challenge the winner of final in a Grand Final Challenge match

Easts have incorrected recorded as MP in a few occassions during this period

 

[Marshall_magic]

Was that the exact method? I thought there was only a 2nd match if the minor premiers got beat in the GF? For example, Storm wouldn't have got a crack last year because they lost prior to the GF?

Perhaps by definition minor premiers made the GF back in those days?

i believe it was some variation of 1 v 3 & 2 v 4 with the winners playing off. If team 1 lost either game they could challenge the winner of the final.

 

[Valheru]

i believe it was some variation of 1 v 3 & 2 v 4 with the winners playing off. If team 1 lost either game they could challenge the winner of the final.

What a strange system

I can see some logic of 1v2 with team 2 having to win twice to win the premiership.

In the system you said above though there is absolutely no motivation for team 1 to win their semi final. Either way they go to a GF whether it's the first one or a challenge.

 

[siv]

What a strange system

I can see some logic of 1v2 with team 2 having to win twice to win the premiership.

In the system you said above though there is absolutely no motivation for team 1 to win their semi final. Either way they go to a GF whether it's the first one or a challenge.

Yes there was

Then win the final - premiership was theirs

If they lost the final they still had the right for GF Challenge

 

[Valheru]

Yes there was

Then win the final - premiership was theirs

If they lost the final they still had the right for GF Challenge

Exactly.

Win the semi, play in a GF, lose the semi, challenge the GF winner in another GF.

The result was the same.

 

[Marshall_magic]

What a strange system

I can see some logic of 1v2 with team 2 having to win twice to win the premiership.

In the system you said above though there is absolutely no motivation for team 1 to win their semi final. Either way they go to a GF whether it's the first one or a challenge.

they get two cracks at the grand final winning their semi. Either they win it first time or they lose and challenge the winner.