BWitcher

If Pawlicki is a bit beat up, can the Poles bring in Janowski for a double pts tac ride here? They are 6 behind I believe.. perfect time to do it against 2 opponents.. Not sure if rules allow it now race has 'started'?

It was exactly the same as previous incident, so call was always going to be the same.

Action replay!

A Nicki special. Got to go surely?

Got full sound but no commentary on Eurosport player. Don't need it, can hear all announcements in stadium fine. Get interviews too. Some great racing in first few heats.

Here comes the OneSport mafia spokesman.

So it has no comparison to now then, meaning your point is redundant.

I take your point, but you could have given much better examples than quoting 3 non British riders?

You are the one prolonging the discussion by continuing to try and defend something you were wrong about. Be an adult, accept you were wrong and move on. Now, unable to do that, you resort to cheap jibes.. sad.

Firstly, there wasn't a wild card available in 2010, so the Lee Richardson situation is irrelevant and hence the majority of your post. The purpose of a wildcard is to use on the best rider who for whatever reason didn't make the Final. Lambert is that rider. If Woffinden AND Lambert had crashed out, Woffinden would be that rider. Your points about Harris, Cook, Nicholls etc, also irrelevant.. they qualified.

Let's not get away from why this debate started. This comment above, which Humphrey, instead of being adult enough to admit he was completely and utterly wrong, has continued to writhe/struggle and deflect away from it. He was called out for suggesting that a 5 overs a side game of 20/20 cricket represents 40 or so minutes of action. It was pointed out that was totally incorrect... he has continued to push his point ever since. Firstly he claimed it was an average of 20 seconds per ball... in a later post changed that to 10 seconds per ball, which is still a push. However based upon Humphrey's very own figure of 10 seconds per ball, that gives us 10 mins of action in a 5 over a side game. Thus the conclusion is he was utterly wrong with his claims of 40 mins.

So you're still talking nonsense. Your claim was 20 seconds per ball. Glad to see you now realise that was wrong and have now reduced it to 10 seconds as an average. As has been said, if you want to include a bowler 'running up' to the wicket, then you include a rider approaching the tapes, making a practice start etc. The 'rules' and 'laws' are utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the action. Take football for example, going by your 'rules', there is 90 mins plus of action... any sensible person would realise the ball in play is a lot less than that.

You didn't answer waihekes question. When was the last time it happened during a bowlers run up? Not at the end of the run-up when he would effectively be making his delivery, or 'stumping the batsmen'.. both actions putting the ball in play. The plain and simple facts are Humphrey, you've made a claim that is not remotely close to being correct. Yet, unable to admit this you continue to argue the toss bringing up totally irrelevant rules. Even including a bowlers run up, which you deem to be 'action', it does not come remotely close to an average of 20 seconds per ball.

And still less time than a speedway meeting. As waiheke says, if you're going to include a run up, then you have to include the moment a rider comes on track in a speedway meeting. Even with a run up you wouldn't get anywhere near an average of 20 seconds per ball. a bowlers run up is 3-4 seconds tops, far less for a slow bowler. The point remains, action per minute attended is less in a cricket match than in speedway.

You do try and talk your way out of things at times. Don't be silly ha. The players are standing around, doing nothing for the most part. Classing 'shining a ball' as action is ridiculous. As for an average of 20 seconds action per ball, you clearly must watch a different game to the cricket everyone else watches. It's less than 5 seconds per ball. In many cases it's less than a second. I'd go as far as saying that you could watch an entire test match without seeing a ball that gives 20 seconds of action. Even when they score 3 runs its not 20 seconds.

Yep, or making practice starts on back straight etc. Horse racing is another classic example.. Can be a 3 hour meeting with 6 races of around a minute each if its a flat meeting.

Where on earth do you get this from? Clearly you're only counting the time of the actual race for the speedway... but on the cricket you're counting the whole thing. Hardly a fair comparison. The actual 'time in play' for cricket for a 5 over a side game would be far far less than 10 heats of speedway.

Agree with everything you say there. There was never a clamour for its removal, why would there be? If you weren't interested, you didn't stay. As regards the interval etc, this is something many of us have raised and is another area the promotion seem way out of touch with the fans on. Speedway is a sport with natural intervals. On freezing cold nights, in a drawn out meeting, to then run an interval does nothing but alienate your fan base. Meetings should be done in 90 mins.

No reinventing of facts here. No doubt costs played a major part in it, nowhere have I disputed that.. The facts remain, by the time they were cut, half of the crowd had gone. Why pay out lots of money for a product 50% of your fan base has no interest in? It was an idea that worked in its day but was coming towards the end of its shelf life when it was dispensed with.

Yeah great, till one of your riders gets hurt in a meaningless 2nd half race that only half the crowd stay behind for... They were got rid off because riders and fans alike weren't interested. More tracks are starting to stage developmental league matches after the main meet and that should be encouraged.

Wilson and Pusey were no better than the likes of Danny King, Craig Cook, Ben Barker are now. Put riders such as King in the format of the 70's they'd be averaging around 7.5 to 9 and be held up on a pedestal. There were more top level Brits then for sure.. but they were a cut above the likes of Wilson and Pusey... just as Woffinden, Nicholls in his prime etc are a cut above King, Cook etc.

A well reasoned comment. The league in the 70's was stronger in comparison to the current Elite League... when compared to its era. However, it wasn't as tough as the Polish League is now. The format made riders such as Pusey, Wilson etc look much better than they were.. another format they'd be 7pt journeyman at best and looked on completely differently. That's not a knock on the riders, just the reality of the situation.

As predicted.. the thread begins to descend into the rose tinted, every rider was great thread in the 70's. Shame as there has been some very interesting reading prior. Your post is redundant the moment you declare Woffinden an Aussie. He isn't, so grow up.

No, the point is completely irrelevant. He stated that as Poole had done nothing wrong they shouldn't lose points. Irrelevant. Who was winning shouldn't come into it.. that's what causes the problems in the first place and shouldn't be used at all. The winning team will say its fine, the losing team its not.. that's always going to happen. The match won't be rerun, we all know that so Poole have nothing to worry about on that score.

The decision to re-run a meeting has nothing to do with whether or not it was Pooles fault, so that line of argument is irrelevant. As above, not an excellent point at all. A completely irrelevant point. If after an investigation it is deemed that heat 9 or 10 should not have been run then quite simply the match has to be restaged as per the rules. If it deems that it was the right decision to run those heats, then the pts stay as they are.