Halifaxtiger

The way you saw the Barker/Auty incident was precisely how I saw it but, being on the back straight, I didn't have a good view and that was why I referred to what two of my mates saw (they were in the home straight stand). You can say that Wilkinson not being excluded would have been a fudge and I dare say a few would agree. However, in my experience when a rider runs out of room on the first - or second - bend after a start that's almost always all four back and I have no doubt that is what it should have been. Kerr definitely moved at the start (by this time I was on the home straight) but I didn't see anything wrong second time. One of the aforementioned mates definitely did, though. Ayres moving at the start, leaving the tapes stone last and the race being called back because he had moved effectively gave him another chance when he was at fault. If a rider gains advantage through moving then the race comes back. If he does not, there's no way that should happen - that's nothing less than ridiculous and Rob Godfrey was right to make comment on it.

Harsh. Even if you allow that the decision to exclude Auty was correct - and a couple of my mates on the home straight said it most certainly was not - Scunny very much got the sharp end of some poor refereeing yesterday, and that was without the injury to Aarnio and the bike problems suffered by Kerr & Palm Toft. As far as I was concerned, I agreed with everything Rob said.

Barker team riding Perks got Redcar two 5-1's today.

Had to have a bit of sympathy for Scunny today because almost everything that could go wrong did. Blown engines, injuries, poor refereeing, the lot. That's not to say that Redcar didn't deserve to win. They did. I am still wondering how Barker & Auty got up so quickly after that awful high speed crash in heat 12. Pity the home announcer (not Messrs Godfrey or Tagg) commented only on how good it was to see that Auty was OK . Most (if not all) speedway fans are very happy to see any rider get up after a fall, particularly one as bad as that. Not a bad meeting, but the racing at Scunny hasn't hit the heights of 2016 in my visits this season.

Lets hope so. Even if two teams are far better than the others, there could still have been some racing.

I think that is par for the course. I know Workington let season ticket holders in on Saturday for nothing even though they would usually pay.

To me, putting on a decent show on track is far more important than a full house in the stadium.

Of course it was to do with the track. It was bloody awful. As to children, I suppose that might refer to Dan Bewley (although its a nonsense to suggest that Bewley wasn't competitive), Jack Smith and James Shanes. What about the other 10 ? When I first went to speedway in 1982, Wimbledon had Dave Jessup, Malcolm Simmons and..................Alan Mogridge. The next season they had a child called Kelvin Tatum. Its always been like that. I doubt if there are many who would disagree that there is a degree of complacency within the sport but that had nothing whatsoever to do with just how poor that meeting was.

I think its harsh, too. From the Isle of Wight facebook page, so does Barry Bishop. But its also the right decision. The Warriors simply cannot carry on the way they are now and desperately need a stronger team, particularly at home. Standing in the promotions shoes, I doubt there are many who wouldn't have done the same thing.

In my experience, most riders do indeed get the amount of time they need after a fall.

Class act. Much missed at Belle Vue.

​Dead right. Its all very well pointing to being hard done by in heat 15 (and I think Workington were and it is likely that Tony Jackson's view of events is what happened) but there has to be an acceptance that the performances of most of the Comets simply weren't good enough. Cook deserved longer than he got. After all, we'd already been waiting for 3 hours - which was almost entirely the fault of the Newcastle promotion - so a little longer wouldn't have mattered. Indeed, its entirely possible that Cook & Jorgensen got less time than the Diamonds riders when they were neither injured nor had damaged their bikes but simply had two rides on the trot. If there was such a directive to referee's at the start of the season, in my view few of them are complying with it and one of them who most certainly was not was Stuart Wilson last night. Given the ridiculous amount of time that had elapsed, he should have had the two minutes on as soon as one race was finished (where possible) and he should have refused permission for the constant track grading in later heats. Absolutely unnecessary, and if Newcastle had made as much effort with preparation prior to the start we might not have had a dangerous track that left 2 riders requiring hospital treatment and a 3 hour meeting.

Get it right in the first place, perhaps ? I tend to agree. A close finish and some decent racing was destroyed by how long we were standing around waiting for the track to be fixed after Lambert fell, then a ridiculous amount of tractor grading after that (it might be me, but didn't the referee at one stage order them off the track ?) and the tapes malfunctions. 3 hours is just not on. A bit of both, I thought. It seemed to me that he simply didn't get enough time after falling in heat 15 and spit his dummy out by making no attempt whatsoever to comply with the two minutes warning. While I have no time for the latter, I can sympathise with the former. The amount of time allowed on occasions when the Diamonds had two rides on the trot seemed to be a lot longer (partly because the tractors came out on almost every single occasion) and he should have had more time. No doubt the referee thought that 3 hours was enough, but he has to take part of the blame because there was little urgency in the later stages of the meeting. Whatever the case, all credit to the Diamonds on their win and on pulling back that deficit. Workington (Cook aside) were poor. Proctor managed to beat Greenwood and Hopwood only, Williamson was a shadow of the rider from the afternoon and both Campton and Jorgensen managed to throw away points.

Good meeting Some very decent racing, partly due to some excellent work by the track staff on a windy day. No dust, no blue line and no ridiculously long or constant tractor racing. Cook never looked like being beaten, Williamson was as good as I have seen him and Jorgensen's ride in heat 13 was out of the top drawer. Get Sarjeant going and Comets will be a real handful. Lindgren, Rose and Lambert were all competitive but Worrall was poor. Nobody should doubt Lambert's ability but doing wheelies when you are stone last won't win you anyone's appreciation and, young as he is, he'll know that.

Thing is what sort of reaction are you going to get. I did this once and got a mouthful of abuse, and that's not exactly unheard of. In addition, almost any feedback is valuable to a business so it should be taken for granted that the King's Lynn promotion actually read this and any other forum connected with their club. Any operation that ignores the views of their paying customers gets what it deserves. True, there is some rubbish on here (and elsewhere) but its not difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. Good to see you're not lost altogether. To me, its more damning if one of your fans up sticks and goes elsewhere rather than quits totally. One suggests you love speedway but not that served up by a certain club, the other says you have had enough completely. The former is a bad reflection on a team but a good reflection on the sport. In truth, I think I have seen 35 matches now and I haven't seen an outstanding one anywhere. Some have been good, most have been OK and one or two have been rubbish, but I don't think I have used the words 'fantastic meeting' at any point.

Peterborough is definitely one of the better race tracks but that's not 'standard stuff' when I have been there. Checking over the last three meetings on BSF threads and proboards there's not much to suggest that anyone else thinks that either and this chap definitely doesn't : 'Not at 5pm on a hot Sunday it isn't. It'll soon be a one line gating competition'.

Part of the problem for Pickering was that it was very difficult to pass last night. I saw him at Peterborough earlier in the season and he attacked the track and got his reward. He did the same last night and got nowhere. Barker, amongst others, was also busting a gut to no effect. There were a couple of decent races - particularly heat 15 - but overall the meeting was disappointing. STMP is a brilliant race track and it certainly appeared that it was back to that early season, only for the last two matches there to be nowhere near that standard.

Much appreciated. No more needed, on my way.

All weather updates appreciated.

Not a surprise to me. Sedgman has done OK but Tungate is a real track specialist.

Dead right Problem is it seems to me that some speedway promoters believe they can serve up any old rubbish and people should pay for it. It simply must be the case that the product is attractive enough (or at least every effort is made to ensure it is) to pull people in and, if its not, I don't blame anyone walking away if they do not feel they are getting their money's worth. Relying on loyalty to the team is just not enough. Late start, rubbish racing and intervals would be three reasons for me to think again about going because there is no need for any of them.

A track prepared for spectators, not riders.

Yes, it is my highlighting. For once, I don't think it is unclear. What it says is that if a rider has an average in the Championship or NL between the years 2011-16 then his average for 2017 is either double the PL one or the NL one, whichever is higher. That is precisely the interpretation used in the Richard Hall/Birmingham decision last year, although in that case Hall's NL average was from 2004 so how they came up with that one your guess is as good as mine. Latest refers to the year it was obtained - so if a rider has a 2016 average in the Championship or NL, that is preferred to a 2015 one. It doesn't refer to the same season, and I think there are sound grounds why that is the case. The reasoning for the inclusion of both Championship and NL averages is wholly justifiable because many riders struggle to cut it in the Championship while remaining kingpins in the NL - one glance at greensheets for riders doubling up will tell you that their averages in the NL are up to 4 times as much as they are in the Championship. If Jack Parkinson-Blackburn, for example, had chosen to ride Championship only this season but dropped down in 2018, he'd come in on 4.00 if the NL rule was not there (rather than his present 11.00 plus figure). James Shanes is the other example. Calculating his present Premiership one to be an NL for 2018, he'd be on 5.60. I am sure we can both agree that would be ludicrously low for a rider of his ability. If a rider has been out of the sport (for injury or otherwise) there should be some sort of reduction allowed depending on how long that is. What we cannot have, though, is precisely what we have got : some riders getting reductions, some not and the reductions themselves being totally inexplicable, wholly unjustifiable and turning out to be ridiculously inaccurate (Paul Hurry springs to mind).

That is true, Steve. That doesn't make it right, though. I was told by a promoter that programmes have 100% mark up. That means you can sell them at half price and still breakeven and I can recall Debbie Hancock doing just that at Somerset the other year I think your suggestion is spot on and that's half the problem. Pretty much all the time you don't know its an insert until you have bought the programme, so its not just a rip off its a con. They should say that it is an insert at least.

In truth, Adz, I think this is a matter of incompetence rather than something a bit more malign. Whoever made the decision to allow Roynon to ride simply didn't check the regulation and/or the averages. The real problem is that they can't admit to their mistake, because I am aware that two clubs have questioned it and, basically, been told to shut up.