Disgruntled New Zealand Super 14 coaches have blasted the Sanzar decision to axe the competition's playoffs expansion for 2009.

After agreement could not be reached with South Africa over the format for a new six-team post-season, Sanzar announced recently that it had abandoned the new finals proposal and would instead return to the traditional format of previous seasons.

That means that just four teams will contest the Super 14 finals which will be held over a straight semifinals-final format over two weekends.

It had been intended to expand the finals by at least a week by bringing six teams into the equation, but South Africa's selfish call for a guaranteed home playoff for the top team from each country left the Sanzar collective unable to come to a unanimous verdict.

That in turn forced the playoffs expansion to be abandoned.

Both New Zealand and Australia firmly believe the top six should be just that - the leading six sides with home advantage being decided by finishing order.

South Africa's bizarre call for protection came on the back of a proposed change to a conference system for 2010 and beyond that will then see top finishers in each conference earn home playoff matches.

The axing of the six-team finals format has disappointed New Zealand coaches who believe the competition is worse off for the retrenchment.

"It's disappointing," said Blues coach Pat Lam. "We understand there needs to be agreement across the three boards, but we certainly felt expansion to a top six would have been great.

"But it's not happening so we've got to get on with it and ensure we're in that top four."

Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder inherits an outfit well versed in the cut-throat nature of the four-team finals, but even he admits the expanded format had some appeal.

Chiefs coach Ian Foster says the competition is the worse for the decision to revert to the old format.

"I felt it would have added something to it and I've always been a believer that in Super 14 there are too many good teams to just go down to four," Foster said.

Glenn Moore of the Highlanders agreed.

"It would have been good for the competition," he said, noting the increase from 12 to 14 teams had not seen the finals expanded.

"A top six would have allowed teams to stay alive longer."

Hurricanes coach Colin Cooper, whose side was a beaten semifinalist this year, also felt a six-team finals format would have been fairer.

"I'm disappointed, most coaches would be, but it didn't work out that way," he said. "The only advantage is that we don't have to start earlier now."

The competition kickoff has been pushed back a week because of the reduced finals, allowing coaches, players - and fans - an extra seven days to prepare.

Strangely, Sanzar was able to reach agreement on the ELVs to play next year. Even more bizarrely they have elected to go for the southern hemisphere version that includes free-kicks for most sanctions.

This part of the experimental laws has been almost universally shunned in the north to the point where the global ELVs being used outside of the Sanzar competitions do not include them.

South Africa had been keen to use the global ELVs in the Super 14 to help its transition into the series against the British and Irish Lions which follows. But in the end they have been prepared to compromise on this front.

Lam said he felt whichever ELVs were used essentially came down to referee interpretations to make them work.

"We saw during the Air NZ Cup a huge emphasis on the defensive team, which was different from the Super 14 where it was on the attacking team. It's important refs interpret that well, and allow teams to have a go and play some football, and not the kick-a-thons we have seen.

"When we played the All Blacks with the Baabaas and used the global ones without free-kicks that actually took the pressure off the ref who allowed the contest to happen at the breakdown.

"If refs rule that right, allow a chance for a contest and allow the attacking team to clear off defenders at the breakdown, then we'll see a lot more flowing rugby."

Moore and Cooper both felt it would be ideal to have everyone in rugby playing under the same regulations.

"The quicker we get united the better for the game," said Cooper, echoing fairly universal sentiments in the game.