AFCB Wildcat

I bet they didn't!! I think that Paul Burbidge's piece in the Star sums up the whole thing perfectly.

That's the strange thing though isn't it? The amended wording of the rule just confirms the definition of its breach to be the only scenario that they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt with the evidence that we & the referee saw. All the previous arguments I've seen that sought to justify the SCB statement had been based on incorrect definitions of the rule, but now they have removed all ambiguity that might have gone some way to justify their decision. It's simply baffling!

I think you're the one getting confused, not me. When you asked why I continued to argue, you were quoting my post to Gavan where I challenged his and dontforgetthefueltapsbruv's unsubstantiated opinion that the white line belonged to the infield but you go on about the SCB ruling. As others have pointed out though, the SCB statement may be a fact but it certainly lacks substance. Anyway, it would appear that I was correct about the white line. The SCB have amended the wording even though, in my opinion it was adequately defined previously as being on the track surface, which would make the inner side of the line the boundary and that is now confirmed.... No apologies necessary lads 😁 Having just received my Star this morning I see that it says "the white line is part of track, meaning a rider is still legally on the track as long as part of their rear tyre is in contact with the line - however small that contact may be" It doesn't state a source for this ruling but if it's from the SCB we can consider it FACT! 🙂. It seems that one is now put to bed too so there's nothing more to argue about now regarding the actual rules, is there?

So in a discussion forum you want me to accept people's unsubstantiated opinions as fact & shut up because it doesn't suit your narrative? .... The SCB bottled it and if people interperate what I said as that a metre wide line that the SCB rules specifically say is on the track surface, could extend across the infield then maybe it's their eyes that need opening, not mine and I have a right to reply.

Back that up with substance then. Not your personal opinion or Google AI. It may open my eyes....😁 I've backed my opinion with a quoted line from the SCB regulations. Every time I ask those who refute it to back up their opinions with fact, I'm met with silence and tumbleweed. As I said... if the line was a meter wide it would have to be on the raceable surface to comply with the SCB written rule.

I disagree, it speciifically says the line is to be "on the track surface" That is what is written, not my definition. If the line was a metre wide it would have to extend across the shale and be part of the track to comply with the written rule, with the inner edge of the track being the meeting of the line & the infield. As I said, markings on the infield are specified in the following paragraph. The White line is stated as 'on the track surface' so how can it count as the infield?

I'm still trying to find where this is defined as a written rule. Having revisited the SCB regulations I note that in section 05.1.4 it states - on the track surface clearly marked lines, chalk is acceptable, are required: a) a continuous line to define the inner edge of the track circuit. The following paragraph then refers to the markings on the infield. If its on the track surface then surely it's part of the track and thus, if any part of the tyre is on the line, it's still on the track.

But that's my issue. You're saying to ignore Google, but that seems to be the only source to define the inner edge as where the white line meets the shale. I can't see it defined within the rule book. As I said, I'd be happy for someone to definitively prove me wrong with something more than their own, subjective opinion on the definition of the written rule. The section on the on the infield gives dimensions to permissible objects or personnel from the track inner edge. Interestingly, the diagram on page 74 shows a 3 meter Photo reporters line, clearly dimensioned from the infield side of the white line. I still believe that the definition of the track inner edge and the point of exclusion for crossing it lacks clarity within the SCB rulebook.

The Google search definitions are very clear but I've still yet to see where they are officially written within the SCB rule book. Nobody has yet pointed me in the right direction. The SCB statement says "having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached. Well okay, reviewed against what, by who and where's the evidence? Did someone at the SCB Google it too? Because as far as I can see, the rules 'as written' are subjective in interpretation. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I can't see anything to back it up. The Google search quoted says "according to SCB regulations the white line is technically Part of the infield and defines the precise racing boundary as where the dirt meets the outer edge of the white paint. Where do the SCB regulations state this? And why does it say 'formula scout' after it? At the end of the day, I have no axe to grind either way. To be honest, towards the end of it, Scunny had won me over with their tenacity and I wouldn't have been upset if they'd won, but when people are saying that this vague SCB statement is proof or make it a fact that the rule was breached, I'd like to see the proof. I'm looking forward to this week's Star. I hope they can put more meat on the bones.

I appreciate that you have stated Google as the source, but are those definitions quoted in the SCB rule book anywhere? Having now downloaded it, Rules 05.4.1.4a & 012.1.11 only contain the wording in the bold text of your post & not the definitions in the regular font. If they are (I don't have the patience to read the whole thing!) then fair enough, it's an open and shut case. If not, it's subjective and down to interpretation of what constitutes 'crossing' a line. As we've seen, this seems to vary depending on individual applications that have been defined with clarity.

That's your interpretation, but that's not what the rule says. If that was the intent, then the rule must say "partially on the centre geen" or " if any part of the wheel is over the line" As it is, you can't have crossed anything if you are still partially on it. The rule is hard enough to police as it is. How could referees possibly judge if a part of a tyre is over the edge of a line in real time. I'm not saying that he definitely didn't cross the line, I'm saying that there is no conclusive evidence either way, so the referee couldn't exclude him. You would need a shot that showed a clear gap between the white line and the edge of the wheel to be sure and I've yet to see one a genuine one. I don't accept any of the AI enhanced photos that have appeared on here that seek to prove it either way.

After reading the article in the Star, it seems there is no intention to build a stadium. The plan is to demolish the existing stadium, build the houses but leave a levelled piece of land big enough for a limited capacity stadium and invite parties interested in operating a speedway facility to manage the operation. The successful applicant would then be a tenant but responsible for financing the building of a stadium that can operate within acceptable noise levels. It would take a brave person or consortium to take on that level of investment in a stand alone, limited capacity speedway facility. No doubt they would find a successful applicant in order to get the green light. Maybe even dump some prefabricated grandstand sections left over from the Abbey on the site before it all falls through due to financial difficulties and the applicant pulls out.

There's a name I know... I'm too young to remember the late 60's (just... 🙂) but I used to see him riding in Dragons meetings at Iwade about 15 years ago and he would have been in his mid 70's then. I didn't know that he'd ridden for West Ham. Glad to hear that he's still with us.

I joined BSF at the beginning of 2010 when my son started riding at amateur level. At the time, it was the place for all the information & updates on amateur meetings, riding equipment buying & selling and was invaluable for technical help on bike maintenance etc. Sadly that section of the forum has been inactive for a number of years. I think that as smart phones became more widespread, Facebook groups took over from Internet forums. It was my first foray into the world of social media and I was surprised by the level of unpleasantness on here. It seems some people are incapable of processing opinions that differ to their own without resorting to belittling & random rudeness. I guess that applies to social media in general though, which is why I avoid it. When I first joined, Speedway was in a lot more people's living rooms because of the Sky coverage, so there was always plenty to discuss, but the only Speedway I see now is the GP so I don't contribute as much these days. I still visit regularly though to catch up on what's going on. I know that even after 16 years I'm still a relative newbie compared to some but it's good to still see familiar names that have been here for my entire BSF journey 🙂

My first meeting was also in 1972. 1973 was my first full season though and Norman was a Pirate again by then, so I remember him well. From the Poole squad that season, we've also lost Christer Lofqvist, Antoni Woryna and Odd Fossengen but most who wore the skull & crossbones that season are still with us thankfully.

It's all witchcraft isn't it? I don't pretend to understand it all but I've got a setup that works well, so I stick with it. I bought the chromecast dongle years ago, before I had a smart TV and I've never had a problem casting with it from any source. I think it was about £30 for the Google dongle, but you can get an unbranded one for about a tenner. I'm using the mobile BSN site and as I said, my TV doesn't show as available which maybe to do with settings on either my phone or TV. Out of interest, I'll try switching to the desktop site and see if shows. Glad you've found a way to cast anyway, as mirroring is certainly less than ideal.

Can you not use the casting feature on BSN rather than screen mirroring? I've always cast from my phone to a chromecast dongle in one of the TV's a HDMI ports. By doing this, the stream goes straight to the TV, so you can use your phone to come on here or do anything else on it without affecting the broadcast on the TV screen. Looking at the tutorial on BSN, you should be able to cast direct to a smart TV even if you dont use a dongle. The list of available devices should show when you tap the 'cast' icon. For some reason though, only my chromecast shows when I tap the icon on BSN. On YouTube, I have the choice of my TV, my EE box or my chromecast when I tap to cast. For those not familiar, Casting & screen mirroring are 2 completely different processes. Screen mirroring uses the phones battery & CPU and replicates the phones screen on the TV. Casting diverts the stream directly to the TV, meaning that the phone is not involved in the process other than being a remote control.

Is there a problem with BSN at the moment? I wanted to watch the Ben Fund that I bought but didn't get to watch fully at the time, but it won't let me sign in. The instruction said "if using the new site for the first time, press 'forgot password' & re set it. I did that and got the email link but Im just getting auth/invalid-action-code I'm probably being dumb, but any advice would be appreciated 🙂

I'm sure you'll be fine. I think the bumper bank holiday crowd on Friday caught me out. We arrived at 5:30 and just missed out. I'm assuming the school was full too, as we weren't directed there. Worst case scenario, the Dolphin centre multi storey is only half mile away. It's £2:60 after 6pm for all night.

I guess it was pretty full. I was looking forward to going, but we were running a bit late. We got to the stadium about 5:30 only to find that the carpark was already full, and still a big queue of cars behind us trying to get in. We went home, which is probably just as well. I don't think my grandson would have had the patience to sit through the delay. Hope Tobi is okay, that's the main thing. Top guy who always engaged with the fans.

It's certainly a strange thing to say. I re read it a few times, but am still wondering what he means by that! The other part of the article that struck me, was the explanation of why they were so desperate to invent the 6th team. In a 5 team league where the top team goes straight to the playoff final, riders may find it preferable to finish second or third in order to get 2 extra meetings. If that's the ethos of professional sportsmen that represent their teams, how can you expect fans to invest in it? I know I'll be accused of being negative or moaning, but while I sincerely hope that Northampton and the season as a whole is a success, it does smack of desperation.

Fair play if they can work it, but I wonder what pretext is used to justify these visits. Are these visits during normal school time or as part of an after school activity? As I said, I can understand a football team because that might encourage kids to play football, which is a school activity. I understand visits to schools by prominent people that might encourage pupils to study a certain subject in order to emulate their accomplishments, but in what capacity does speedway enhance their education? My point was though, that you can't mandate visits to schools, when it is dependant on whether the head teacher wants to endorse Speedway.

I can't help feeling that may be beyond the remit of the BSPL. It would depend hugely on the willingness of the schools to participate, and I'm struggling to see why they would. A football, Hockey, tennis, rugby club etc. maybe, because it may encourage the kids to participate in these sports at school and promote physical education. Speedway though has no relevance other than being a form of entertainment. Why would schools allow someone to come in, just to promote their business to children while they are susceptible to influence? It would be like inviting the local cinema owner in to drum up trade. A stall at a fete is not a bad idea though.

Are the waters getting muddied here? YeOldPitGates post that has been quoted, is a reply to Orion's post about potential development of Poole Stadium, not the Abbey hub development.

Wasn't it a similar situation with Bristol in the 70's? As I remember, didn't Newport just relocate to Eastville?