Vincent Blachshadow

They did, mate, and, more importantly, do - in most tracks around the country. You can tell by the empty spaces in the stands and terraces. Course, you don't have to believe me, you can just believe all newbies keep coming back because they find the sport riveting and the rules so fair and understandable. Now, if only THAT were true!

How unexpected! If only they'd thought tac rides were a good idea.

Ah, tac rides, new fans. Reminds me of an occasion a season or two back. At a PL track for a league match, stood quite close to obvious newbies. Score after ht 7 was 27-15. Out came a rider in black and white who won the heat, home riders second and third. Our newbies had sussed the scoring system so down went the score. After a 4-2 in heat 9, they heard the score announced as 34-23. Looking puzzled, they asked me the score and I agreed at 34-23. 'We've got it at 34-20' they say. 'Ah, but you didn't double the tac riders score, you know, the one in black and white a heat or two earlier'. 'Ah, right'. said the one given the honour of filling in the programme. All was well again for another heat, a 4-2 home win. Out came a rider in black and white to finish third in a 1-5 reverse. Quick on the uptake, the newbie scribe put the score down. After the next (drawn) heat he heard the announcer give the score out as 46-29. Looking puzzled he stepped over to me and, before he could say anything, I said 'I bet you've got 46-30'. 'Yes, I have' he replied. So I told him it was 5-1 not 5-2 since the t/r didn't beat an opponent. 'What's this t/r all about then?' (or words to that effect) he asked. So I told him. Mickey Mouse was mentioned and something along the lines of 'why give them double points because they're getting hammered. They should pull their fingers out and get riding not take b****y hand-outs. They don't have stupid rules like that down the road' (meaning the local Football League team). The visiting team did pull their fingers out and two successive heat wins gave them a shout at a point coming into heat 15. The newbies were gone by then!

Yes, but in speedway, things can only get better.

But has having to listen to Showaddywaddy put you off going to any more speedway?

In many discussions on here, we keep getting told that, for most, speedway is all about four blokes racing round a track and much of the rest is incidental. So if the sport is now almost down to the bare-bones of support most will be of the 'all about four blokes' type so should still come regardless of who's out there. I don't know if leaving these highly paid riders out is the answer but we'll never know until we try. What I can see though is that, if clubs are making huge losses with these expensive to employ and maintain riders, without them clubs will probably still make losses, but they should be smaller. Cutting the amount of the loss could be the first step to cutting losses all together. That could stop some regulars giving up coming but will it get newbies? The high cost of the sport could be a deciding factor as to whether a newbie attends a meeting or not. £17 is a lot of money to come and find out you don't like it specially in today's financial state and with plenty of alternatives to spend the money on one does like.

Is that really any different to the fourth rider in GP semis and final having to walk over and pick up the one remaining colour card? And I remember our own EL team managers saying, in the past, prior to heat 15 and after the winners of the toss had chosen, such as 'we'll have 2 & 4 then' or, on the odd occasion, repeating what the other manager had just picked and laughing. Why would that have been, unless asked the same question? Can't remember any looking stupid comments then. Just part of the show.

They? Isn't that the system that's used in our own Best Pairs competitions?

I think the point might be that, when asked about Belle Vue, more people knew it was the ground of a third or fourth tier club in one sport than the name of GB's most famous club in another.

I also think Tai should have been excluded.

EoES - Jason Crump, Ryan Sullivan, Peter Karlsson, Leigh Adams.

Isn't it the rider's registration/license/permit to ride speedway in this country that's actually held by his parent club rather than the rider himself? So no, the rider isn't 'owned' by anyone. He's perfectly entitled to get a job in Aldi if he so wishes.

Yes, over here it is. But as others have said, not so much on the continent where a rider is more often than not excluded for a first bend incident. How often have the non-Brit refs kept all four in for instance. That's one of the reasons the Polish ref is slagged off on here for throwing a rider out in a first bend crash and some of us think it should be all 4 back. Yes, I'm aware the ref is always rig has to make the call and what he says goes but isn't that what a forum is for, to debate things like this?

Would it? I think not. 'First bend bunching' isn't in any rule book. The correct call is 'unsatisfactory start' which Ackroyd decided to call on. The argument is whether or not the first bend after a clean start comes under that heading. Ackroyd thought it did, some think not.

Exactly. Sometimes barging or running into another rider at or near the start culminates in an incident on the first bend which could and should be brought back as an unsatisfactory start. This was not such an incident, the riders got away from the tapes and the starting gate area satisfactorally. The initial incident was on the first bend. As the thread title suggests, Ackroyd stuck with the easy option and called all 4 back.

Thanks for the support, but Mr Rising's post sums up exactly why I stopped buying his publication - I (and anybody else who points out official cock-ups, doesn't agree with the establishment or indeed, doesn't think everything in the sport is hunky-dory) don't matter.

There was a stoppage, it wasn't at the start, 'the cause', by the rules, goes.

It's far better to have a football match between two teams with 11 players a side but when a player breaks rules he goes. Nothing to do with what's better, it's to do with rules. Rules state the cause of a stoppage goes, end of.' An element of doubt' has never stopped a rider's exclusion later in a race (with one notable exception - Steele), so what was the difference here?

Years back, there were 30 yard markers at the side of the track. Put them back and there's your answer.

Quite. The start was fine, the cause of the stoppage was a first bend incident on the first lap. Yes, many (mostly British) referees use the rule to bottle out of making a decision but that doesn't make it right - somebody should have been excluded. Over the years, I've seen far more non-exclusions for unsatisfactory extended starts in GB than anywhere else and it's about time our refs were told to grow some (or whatever the female equivalent is for our three ladies) and make a decision.

Can't say that somebody would have gone even then. Tony Steele, 'The World's Top Referee', saw fit to call all 4 back after an incident well into a heat in a GP.

Holder should have been excluded. We all complain about the Polish ref, Grodski or something like that, for making the wrong call but at least he doesn't bottle it and makes a call. Ackroyd's non-decision is up there with 'The Worlds's Best' ,Tony Steele's non-decision when he bottled excluding a rider after an incident on the second or third lap a few years back and allowed both riders back into the rerun. Shameful.

Nicki. Holder will be World Champion but I don't think it will be this year.

Thanks DW, great as always.

Thank you. Great racecard, as always.