Halifaxtiger

I might be being very thick here, but where does that leave Plymouth Speedway ?

No question that Nielsen dramatically changes direction as he comes off the bend from the outside to the inside but I am not sure that's the issue here. Its what happens when he gets into the gap between the two Dudley lads that counts. Having looked at it several times, he seems to me to go straight while Roynon comes off the inside by a couple of feet, leaving Nielsen no room at all and then they collide. Going into the bend, and using the front end view, Roynon's front wheel is on the white line but when the crash happens (and that's off the rear view) he is a couple of feet away from it. The only doubt in my mind is its possible that even if Roynon had not moved there would still have been a collision, which makes it Nielsen's fault by going for a gap that did not exist. I am certainly not as convinced as I was. One thing I most certainly do agree with and that is that it should not necessarily be the case that one rider has to blamed for being the cause of an accident. I doubt if there is a speedway fan who hasn't seen a pile up that has been the result of two riders going for the same piece of track at the same time, yet I have never seen a race where there is a re-run with all four when that happens. If you can have bunching on the first bend, why not on all bends for all four laps ?

Only one person to blame for that - and its not Chris Louis. 'Rule 14.9.2 During the meeting, The referee shall refuse access, either in person or by telephone from any Competitor or Official, subject to reasonable communication being granted to the Clerk of Course and Team Managers'. As far as I am aware, Chris Louis is neither, so why was he allowed to even speak to the referee, never mind go up to the box ?

You should post more often. Spot on.

I don't think that is particularly relevant to Dudley's protest. This about a member of the Mildenhall promotion being in the box and discussing the incident before a judgement was made. That simply cannot happen.

You must be joking. A 'well known summariser' who happens to be the Mildenhall promoter. That's a bit like asking Cadbury's chief chocolate taster which is the best tasting chocolate.

Nielsen did run out of room but that was as a result of Roynon attempting to close the gap far too late. Definitely the correct decision in my book. To be fair, Rob, Dudley's protest isn't about the referee's decision (which is undeniably correct) its about a promoter going to the referee's box after an incident and before a decision was made. That's completely different to a phone call and no-one in their right mind would suggest that that is acceptable. The person at fault is Dave Robinson and he deserves to be heavily criticised for it. I can very much understand where the Dudley promotion are coming from but they are utterly wasting their time, because they will gain nothing from it.

I don't have a problem with Stoke fans at all (quite the opposite in fact). All I am saying is that I could identify two or three Stoke fans among the posters and they were almost as biased as the Dudley ones.I would have thought that their comments would have been a lot more objective, giving that they were effectively neutral. You will find that I say what I see. Credit where credit is due, criticism where I believe that is called for and that is not motivated by having some axe to grind but what I am convinced are the best interests of the sport and its ability to grow and prosper. If I have merely been critical about Stoke this year (and I think that is true) that is because what I have seen there has only been worthy of criticism.

I think it is very good practice for a referee to view a video recording in such circumstances - particularly given what was at stake. I have to say that I am astonished that a referee allowed any member of either teams camp into his box at any point in the meeting as that quite clearly could be interpreted as having affected his view on any incident. Good post - I knew there must be one Dudley fan who'd give a reasonably objective view . I agree with you about Mildenhall going PL. They have attracted some big gates to West Row but, believe me, half of them will clear off at the first chance of a home defeat (in that, they are only slightly worse than most speedway teams). Don't get me wrong, they have some fantastic supporters who will stick with the club through thick and thin but I think it will be a serious financial gamble to go PL - unless circumstances are such that they virtually have to move up.

That reply is pretty par for the course, although I am a little surprised (and disappointed) at GP. The comments on face book last night were unbelievable - crap referees, poor decisions, being robbed, stupid play off system, rubbish NL and Mildenhall cheats (despite the fact that virtually everyone commenting wasn't at the meeting). There wasn't one single word of plaudit for Mildenhall (and that includes from Stoke fans) and hardly a word about the fantastic effort by the Heathens to get so close with so weakened a team. I haven't seen the decision yet either, so I won't comment on its accuracy. That won't stop me offering my sincere congratulations to the Fen Tigers and, in particular, to all my old mates at West Row who stuck with the team during the dark days of 2006-11. True supporters who totally deserve this.

I think there is a lot of the truth in here. Tough economic times and the very poor summer weather wise have hit everyone. In Berwick's case, that was compounded by an awful injury list. I think there has to be a realisation amongst the riders that the pay deals have to change. I know they make little given that they risk their lives every time they get on a bike but if pay remains the same there is a very real threat that they won't earn anything because teams will close down one after the other. I am particularly saddened that Berwick are struggling, because to me John Anderson has done more to push his team forward than any other promoter in the country. The stadium has been transformed with the new fence, new lighting, new surface and better racing. What's more, he had the balls to lower entry charges in an attempt to get more fans in in the manner suggested by many. He deserves better, and I trust that he will get it.

As always, GP, very fair comment. Terrific performance from Dudley to go into tonight's tie 14 points up after losing Perry so early on, all credit to them. Having said that, Mildenhall threw away too many points - Garrity, Halsey & Bates all losing scoring positions unnecessarily (and even taken into account the wet track). Jacobs held Mildenhall together with some very consistent riding (in my experience, not for the first time away from home) and also deserves a deal of credit. He's had easily his best season this year, and might be worth a punt for a PL club in 2013. If the second leg were at West Row, Mildenhall would be odds on. As it is at King's Lynn, who knows but it is set up very nicely for a cracking meeting. Would echo Adzmft's comments regarding the behaviour of certain Dudley fans - it seems that punching the air with delight when an opposition rider falls is more common place in the Midlands - and also about a very poor refereeing display. From where I was standing, Dudley can thank Mr Reeve at least in part for the lead they have.

You haven't seen Stefan Nielsen ride King's Lynn. He's almost unbeatable round there. To be fair, it does even things up a bit. Real shame for the Fen Tigers home crowd. The only good news I might be able to make that when I couldn't get to West Row.

Not so sure on these predictions. In the league encounter, Mildenhall lost by 14 but had an ineffective number one and Dudley had Perry at reserve. Put Garrity in and move Perry up and it would have been very close indeed (there was also a shocking refereeing decision to exclude Blackbird in one race).Looking at the weather reports the conditions will be similar. Mildenhall are definitely weakened by having to use rider replacement but not much, as Bates is riding superbly and Jacobs beat Roynon last time. Dudley by 6.

Bloody freezing, and the drive home over Holme Moss in thick fog wasn't too clever either. Not a bad match, and I trust that Dean Felton will be OK after a nasty looking loop at the gate.

Will be leaving in about an hour, updates available in the usual place.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that at all. The question is, though, where do you start ? Rooves are the best way, but expense and stadium ownership rule that out. Covers is the next, and I am surprised that that hasn't been tried more - even allowing for the considerable cost. However, I am aware of only two matches where they have been tried - at Belle Vue some years ago and at Berwick this season. I know the Belle Vue track was virtually unrideable, and the Berwick one certainly wasn't brilliant. It says everything that Berwick haven't used them again. As regarding the actual surface, speedway has raced on shale for decades, so it would require a complete change to the material. Given that some sort of loose base is needed, it will inevitably be porous and just as much at risk of the weather as what we have now. One last point. While many regard the BSPA as a set of imbeciles, I believe that the opposite is true - most are, in other ventures, very successful businessmen. Given that speedway loses hundreds of thousands of pounds every year as a result of rain offs, it is very hard indeed to believe that they haven't considered some kind of remedial change in practice over the last 40 or 50 years - suggesting that, practically, there isn't any. I agree that there are more early call offs and that meetings might have been run in the past where they are now. Some of that I am sure is the desire to avoid financial loss in these parlous times. Another, it seems, is the change to machinery. Finally, riders seem prepared to ride in the GP's in wet conditions so there is the question of motivation. I don't think your point is unreasonable, but in the end Tsunami is right - we are very much at the mercy of the weather and this year it has been awful.

If I was in charge at Plymouth I'd be interested. If I was in charge at Lakeside I'd be interested in him going there, too given the difference in size between Smallbrook & SBA.

I thought it was a decent match, too. Sadly, I doubt if there were 100 spectators.

Been decided; result as at abandonment to stand, Ipswich to go into the League Cup Final. 'YET again the weather has wreaked havoc with Premier League fixture planning - following the abandonment of the Premier League Cup Semi-Final between Workington and Ipswich at Derwent Park on Saturday. Both clubs have approached the BSPA Management Committee for help and support to resolve the issue as their respective fixture problems increase. David Hoggart, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: “We have had to take a common sense approach to the difficulties the weather has created, and the only way to prevent both Scunthorpe and Somerset as well as other competitions being similarly affected is to allow the aggregate result at the point of abandonment to stand. “As I indicated last week, the circumstances are on an unprecedented scale and we have had to make some unprecedented decisions that are not universally popular. But to force four clubs to run numerous fixtures between them on off race days in shared stadiums is not in the best interests of the sport. “The planning and use restrictions on both Somerset and Ipswich are well-documented, notwithstanding Workington's inability to come up with a date that does not impede the competition.” Workington Team Manager Tony Jackson added: “In order that the competition can progress to its conclusion, we feel that we have no option available to us other than to agree that the aggregate scores after the 24 completed heats of the semi-final shall determine which team progresses to the final; and that team will be Ipswich, who will now face Somerset in the final. “It is disappointing not to be able to offer a restaging date; nevertheless, we wish both teams well for the final.” Personally, I think that is a correct decision based upon common sense and the fixture pile up.

Weather forecast looks good, so fingers crossed. I'll be making the journey by car, ferry, bus & foot (from Weymouth) and have told Sue I'll be available for update duty for those who can't attend.

They'll fit in well with EL clubs in the area where that's concerned, believe me. Coventry are absolutely appalling.

There has been a lot of muttering about major changes for the NL with rumours abounding about Dudley & Mildenhall moving up. I know there has been a meeting with all NL clubs present but unfortunately don't know the outcome .

I am not sure that it is difficult to make a judgement on whether a rider was in a team's declared line up or not. Personally, I'd say that it is extremely easy. I make decisions every day on legislation that is extremely complex, frequently changing and subject to interpretation. I justify every single one of them and they are made available in full to the parties concerned. Some of the decisions aren't easy, but the process itself most certainly is. There's absolutely no reason why speedway could not have something similar. As you rightly say, though, until there is a change in structure we will have to put up with the secrecy and the frequent use of the 'best interests of speedway' (which can justify almost anything, including that which runs directly contrary to the rule book). Personally, I'd treat anything the BSPA rule with a degree of suspicion. To be fair Bates is quite clearly eligible to ride, although whether he was on Sunday is an entirely different matter(he is not in the declaration dated 28/09/12 for Mildenhall, but is in that dated 12/10/12.)

Both you & Mr M could be right when you say it could have been some sort of screw up by the BSPA but, if that's the case, why haven't Mildenhall stated that they did re-declare and why haven't the BSPA confirmed that ? The thing is that many decisions made by the BSPA cannot be relied upon in the slightest to adhere to the regulation specific to the situation at hand. In addition, its all done in secret so we will never know what the actual position is. We can speculate but once again we are left with a discrepancy hanging in the air when a simple explanation would clear things up for good. The failure to do so leads me to believe that there is something underhand here - basically they don't say anything because they can't justify it - and that's the wider and far more important issue. Whether Bates could ride or not isn't the problem, its an example of the problem.