A reluctance to embrace the concept of play-offs perhaps betrays an innate conservatism in Irish rugby, writes GERRY THORNLEY

THE VEXED question of play-offs in the Magners League has reared its head again, and this season's run-in underlines both the benefits and the flaws in the system. Leinster stand a dozen points clear of Cardiff and will wrap up the title either prior to the penultimate round of matches or on that weekend.

No one could dispute that, after responding to their only two league defeats in October with an 11-game unbeaten run, they are worthy champions.

Without play-offs, it will make for a relatively anti-climactic finale for the rest of the tournament given the scale of Leinster's lead. So it was that Llanelli coach Phil Davies - whose team lie in fourth place - called for play-offs to be introduced. In response, when interviewed by BBC Wales's Scrum5 last week, Magners League chief executive David Jordan intimated they will likely be introduced for the 2009-10 season.

However, were play-offs in operation it would mean the best team in the league would still have two knock-out matches to negotiate after topping the table by some distance. That hardly seems fair and, frankly, looking at the example of Leinster, it wouldn't be.

The notion of the team that finishes a league campaign in first place being crowned champions - after everyone plays each other home and away - is both reasonable and quaint. Every domestic football league of note is decided in such a way. Yet in every major rugby championship in the world play-offs apply, be it the English Premiership, Super 14 or whatever.

Even the French championship, with its Bouclier de Brennus (shield), ultimately comes down to semi-finals and a final. Toulouse could lead all the way this season, and it won't matter how many points they finish in front of anyone else. The only "advantage" they'll accrue is to play the fourth-placed finisher, but - as with the final - at a neutral venue.

At least in England and the Super 14, the top side earns a home semi-final. Even so, that doesn't diminish the mystique of the Bouclier one iota, and also ensures a final in front of 80,000 at the Stade de France every year.

Traditionalists will rile at the concept of play-offs, but the point is that neither the first-past-the-post nor a contrived knock-out finale is perfect. Each system has its flaws. The question is what's best overall for the competition concerned.

The Magners League suffers on a number of fronts, not least a lack of public credibility/ media exposure compared to the Heineken Cup. Even more damaging has been the Welsh regions' understandable commitment to pocket the BBC largesse for the Anglo-Welsh Cup. The regular interludes for that competition have not only distracted the Welsh and added to the end-of-season backlog caused by postponements, it has starved the league of a stable fixture list and a balanced look to the table.

As damaging has been the politics - both internally and between the three representative unions - which has ensured self-interest reigns. By rights, as the Welsh especially favour, the eight teams which automatically qualify for the following season's Heineken Cup should simply be the top eight teams in the Magners League at the season's end, with the ninth side meeting the third-ranked Italian side in a play-off for the final place. Coupled with a play-off finale, it would ensure interest and competitiveness all the way through the table. Ring-fencing set numbers from each country can merely reward mediocrity over meritocracy.

Help for the league is at hand, given the impending demise of the EDF Cup. Although a crowd of 66,000-plus underlines the popularity of the Anglo-Welsh rivalry at club level, under the terms of the new accord between the RFU and Premier League Rugby, the weekends currently set aside for the EDF Cup will now be pencilled in for Premiership fixtures to free up England players for autumn and Six Nations windows.

Who knows, there may still be an Anglo-Welsh competition of some sort but, at a stroke, the Magners League fixtures and table will have a more rhythmic look. It will also mean teams will be able to play their leading men and strongest teams more often.

There's also a possibility that the Scottish Union may yet find a way to revive their numbers to three, with, say, the possibility of creating a third team out of London, although bearing in mind their financial position this looks a little fanciful. For the time being, they have dispensation to have two automatic qualifiers for the Heineken Cup.

Hence, as the Magners League only contains 10 teams - as opposed to the dozen or 14 in the other leagues mentioned - there's a clear danger that a top-four play-off system would also reward mediocrity. After all, to have 40 per cent of your league entering the final two weekends of a 20-match campaign effectively on an equal footing would hardly reward runaway leaders such as Leinster.

Then again, it is not a league with a level playing field in the strictest sense, for some teams are more handicapped than others by international demands. A reluctance to embrace the concept of play-offs perhaps betrays an innate conservatism in Irish rugby. Yet there's a grudging acceptance of them now when deciding the AIB League first division, and imagine how much interest the AIL second and third division play-offs would have if a promotion place were at stake? They may not be fair, strictly speaking, either, but look at the interest they generate.

Jordan has strongly intimated that, from 2009-10, a top-four finale, with first at home to fourth and second at home to third in the semi-finals, followed by a decider is the likeliest scenario.

However, a more meritorious system might be to have a top-three play-off, with the first-placed team ensured of a place in the final in the venue of their choosing, with the second-placed at home to the third. This would give greater reward to the team which emerged on top over the 18 games, as well as to the second team, while keeping the threshold for qualification to 30 per cent rather than 40 per cent of the league.

It would still sustain interest most of the way down the table, and provide a finale for supporters, sponsors and television alike. It wouldn't ensure the best team are crowned champions, but it would make it more likely, would reduce the number of dead rubbers on the run-in - and at least everyone would know the rules from the start.