szkocjasid

Personally I'd like to see more development series individuals. Maybe for 2025, teams that don't race in the NDL have to hold a device series individual.

I think there is a call for referees to make decisions based on how hard a rider moves over / hits another rider, rather than if the opposition falls off. It seems a rider can be incredibly hard, but as long as his opponent stays on - nothing is done. But someone gets lightly brushed (i.e Riss against Birmingham) and falls they get in the re-run. I would like the referees to really ask themselves, "could they have stayed on" rather than "was there contact". Then the reverse for over the top hard racing, if a referee thinks"if rider A fell I'd have excluded rider B" then should rider B not be excluded, even if rider A just managed to stay on?

Duplicated.

Options for Poole of Foord isn't fit for the play-offs, BSN, KOC (or at least part of them) Killeen (not play-offs) Roynon (if fit) Hook, Baek (if he gets a new average) Trigger, Coles, Pijper & Starke. Depends if averages fit in September for some (Killeen, Hook).

Jack Smith has a higher average than Pearson, so he'd be next in line if Rowe & Ivacic aren't allowed

I thought it would be 1 v 4 & 2 v 3, but it doesn't state that. However it also doesn't state top team gets to pick their opponents neither.

Prediction: Birmingham 44 Leicester 46. Honestly looking at the teams I'd have Brummies down for a 2 points win, but they have a knack of riding terribly whenever they look to have a chance, so can easily see them lose every match for the rest of the season.

Prediction: Belle Vue 52 King's Lynn 38

Normally it would make sense to sign a rider with a higher NL average, but like you say it's not always as simple as that. Last year Ace did very well in the Champ 3+ ave, but was below 6 in the NL. Foord was only a 6 point rider when Poole took him on & he's done very well. James has dropped to reserve for Leicester, but (just) hitting his average for Edinburgh, while Perry had the highest NL average of all newcomers but struggled with Poole, granted he was coming back from injury.

Not saying I wouldn't go for Pijper, but Springer on a 2.00 average seems a good shout too.

I didn't think this replacement was allowed under the rules, I make it that Glasgow have raced 15/20 matches (75% of their season). At that stage only change allowed is riders coming back from injury. Otherwise Redcar could've replaced Bailey with a 28 day replacement if they weren't allowed to drop him permanently? Unless Glasgow made the change on Friday night / Saturday morning before the Plymouth match, but didn't announce it till now?

1. Oxford 2. Poole 3. Workington (if Cook is riding) 4. Glasgow (if Rowe is riding) 5. Redcar

Unfortunately for Berwick fans, the point they have to prove is that they are better than Killeen not Masters & Nicholls. Can only see them near the bottom.

Often does it for away matches, especially after Schlein got injured. I guess Dickson feels as he doesn't have a strong second heat leader, uses a weaker rider in heat 13, to be stronger elsewhere. For me it's a sensible tactic employed by a weak team to avoid a drubbing, not a strong team looking for a win.

As long as Rowe races one league match, then he'd be using his 23 & 24 matches for his rolling ave. Gibes him a much better chance of finding a Champ spot in 25.

As well as Brown, Schroeck (can't remember the Godfrey one) often calls out refs decisions when they lose. Bizarrely the opposition team rarely claims they got a lucky win!

Now they've given Hodder a full season, think it's worth giving him another go.

Depends how many teams are in the league, if Mildenhall join, maybe lowered a bit?

Having seen a clip of heat 11, that race definitely should've been re-run for Barker moving at the start. Can understand Cami being angry at that one. Of course that then means, no tac sub in heat 12.

Without knowing the rules for next year it's tough, but no harm in having fun predicting teams. Troy Batchelor - 8.38 Paco Castagna - 6.97 Tate Zische - 6.96 Antti Vuolas - 6.29 Connor Bailey - 4.97 Paul Starke - 3.50 Ace Pijper - 2.93 Total - 40.00

If I was a Workington fan, I'd want Starke back.

Indeed, whatever the points limit is, Workington would want Zischke back.

I understand your point, to a degree I can agree with you, the later heats may have been different, especially heat 15, although I'm not sure why they wouldn't try when they get paid for points money. However Cami says the referee cost them the match more than once, even using your "butterfly effect" theory - Glasgow may have done better in heat 15, they also may not have. So whatever way you see it, still can't say the ref cost Glasgow the match imo.

Comment by Cami on the Glasgow FB page. "We feel sick. The referee has cost us another meeting again. We are absolutely scunnered" The referee didn't cost you the meeting "Jack Smith was in front of Baek in Heat 5 and she said Jack wiped him out which was a lot of nonsense" If ref excluded Baek, Glasgow have 2 more points. "Then Jordan was winning Heat 14 by a mile and James falls off. The referee then re-runs it after three laps despite Jordan being well ahead" Why should the ref give Glasgow the benefit of the doubt when their own riders fell off? "The race is re-run. Baek falls and the race should have been stopped then. But he actually hit Jordan who then lifts and careers into Joe Thompson. Then she puts both Plymouth riders back in the race" Heard different versions of this, but wouldn't have changed the result. "I also asked her about Ben Barker clearly moving at the start of Heat 11 but she said she didn’t see anything. I said she could look at the replays on TV but she wouldn’t" Can understand why he's unhappy, but if the ref didn't see anything, do they need to look at the replays just because a team manager wants them to? “But she looked at the replays of Heat 14 three or four times" I'm guessing the ref thought it needed another look & wanted to make she she'd made the correct decision. "We should have gone into Heat 15 in a last heat decider at 42 each" No you wouldn't, because the heat 12 5-1 with Harris as a tac sub wouldn't have happened. "We would have won that meeting tonight without those poor decisions" Nope, not true "We never gave in all night. I waited to do the tactical substitute and that paid off" As explained earlier, wouldn't have been able to do a tac sub of Smith wasn't excluded. I wonder if Cami would've gotten the blame for not using a tac sub the one time they had a chance? "It’s a long way down for bad refereeing decisions to cost us the match" It's a long way down for your own riders to cost you the match.

But it could come back to haunt them, if Belle Vue needs guests & the other teams return the compliment of not allowing Aces to use their riders.