Template talk:2018 Rugby League Qualifiers Table

Promotion/Relegation Scenarios
My two cents is that while it is true that "theoretically anyone of the top 6 could still be relegated", one of those teams cannot be relegated directly and is guaranteed a place in the Million Pound Game. To me at least, that's interesting/useful, as I like to know who is up & down for definite, but also who has secured a place in the MPG, who can *only* qualify via the MPG etc...

This seems to be fairly standard for many league-based competitions - see for example the 2018 World Cup Qualifiers (UEFA), which have statuses like (Y) "Assured of at least second place, but not assured of play-offs" or (Z) "Cannot qualify directly, but can still qualify via play-offs" etc...

That's actually the reason I first came to this page, to find that info, and then upon seeing it wasn't there I created it! Unclear if that counts as own research or not...

In any case, I think the different statuses will be particularly interesting & relevant over this final week, since the four games are on different days, to keep track not just of who's in/out, but who could still be in/out pending other results.

To give an example: *if* Salford beat Toulouse on Thursday, then Salford will actually be promoted for sure (even if Hull & Toronto both win), due to their points difference. Meanwhile, Toulouse won't be out of it, but will have switched to status "L", can only qualify via the MPG.

Thoughts?

Mojo87 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you really insist on using parameters like this when it'll all be known for definite in less than a week then use the built in status of T but again this time next week we'll have removed all the status symbols as the competition has ended - it's so transitory as to be irrelevant. The World Cup Qualifiers are over a much longer period so there might be more merit in indication possible outcomes but not when it's all over in 6 days. There is also too much, imo, OR goes on in tables like this where people include what is likely to happen rather than relying on verifiable published information from reliable sources. We report fact not speculation. Nthep (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I do take your point regarding the status symbols being transitory - although having said that, there are times when qualification statuses *are* used on such a short timeframe, e.g.: in the WC Qualifiers, there's typically 4 days between the penultimate and final round of games, but editors usually still update the qualification scenarios for that period...


 * Not sure I agree with "we report fact not speculation" point, though - I mean, it is after all a fact that Leeds are qualified at least for the MPG, not speculation! I saw a couple of edits here marking Leeds/Salford as "promoted", and I agreed with removing those since they are speculation - although it's very likely, it's not certain, which is what counts.


 * In any case, I'm going to leave the changes I made (except to use the built-in status as you suggest), as it was the info I came here looking for, so it might help another person :) I've added a source which includes reference to Leeds' status, though, because you're right that my previous work was OR. Mojo87 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly an apology my "we report fact not speculation" wasn't aimed at you so sorry if you took it as such as it looks like we agree on that point - no OR. I'm not going to argue my viewpoint any further save to say I disagree with microanalysis and labelling of such transitory nature, mainly because it becomes a Reductio ad absurdum situation with labels being created for more and more convoluted possibilities and I prefer a more broad brush approach until the dust has settled. Nthep (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)