PHILIPRISING

WOULDN'T argue that Holder was lucky but that is not the same as saying Craig Ackroyd was wrong. Lucky in as much as many other referees might have called it differently. But then many would say that he would have been unlucky had he been excluded. What this thread illustrates perfectly is that different people see the same incident differently from others. I fully understand and respect that, although there are many positing who don't accept that some people hold a different view to their own. Ackroyd had absolutely no doubt about his decision. He called it as he saw it. He is an honest man and doesn't deserve to be castigated, especially when there are plenty who would have done the same.

DON'T forget that the choice of wild cards (or nominated riders as they should be known) is made by the FIM in consultation with BSI/IMG and the opinions of GP Race Director Tony Olsson and FIM Speedway Director of Sport Ole Olsen will carry considerable weight. My own view for it is worth (not a lot!) is that Vaculik has a much stronger case than Michael Jepsen Jensen but we will know soon enough.

QUITE right...

PERHAPS it is you who should be looking in a mirror? Easy to throw such views and words around on here, most of which are totally distorted, and knowing full well that Craig Ackroyd cannot defend himself. I don't travel with him but I can tell you that is neither weak nor timid and certainly didn't need a change of underwear as you so eloquently put it. If the incident was as clear cut as many of here believe then you can argue that the harder decision was the one he made. Not quite sure what is this old boys' network you are talking about and if I had thought Craig was wrong would have said so. But I don't and haven't.

FEEL better for that?

TYPICAL remark from you ... would hate to live in your world

BECAUSE first bend incidents are related to the start in that particular context. You see this all the time, riders clashing on the first bend and a rerun being ordered. Simply do not accept that Ackroyd did anything out of the ordinary. Pedersen tried to clamp down on Holder, as he was entitled to do. Holder tried to keep going, even with his front wheel over the white line, as he was entitled to do. Result... a racing incident that the referee decided was not the sole fault of either rider. He did watch TV replays but immediately felt that they confirmed what he had seen with his own eyes. We are going round in circles here now. People have made up their own minds, quite rightly, and we will just have to agree to disagree.

THE incident started on the first bend ... the official verdict (I get that in my radio at the GPs from the referee via the SGP secretary who sits next to him): unsatisfactory start, all four back.

WHEN have I said that my opinion is the only one that matters? Mine is just that, an opinion. The only one that matters is that made by the referee.I just happen to agree with it. As do many others. And many do not. How do arrive at the statement MOST? Most on here? Most watching on TV. Most at the stadium? How are you managing to count them? Why should everyone admit Chris was lucky if they don't think so? Why should we say he was guilty when we don't think so? Speedy... so you have never seen a race stopped after a rider or riders have fallen after the 30 metres marker and all four being allowed back in? I already said that I don't condone the scuffle (wouldn't actually call it an assault) but, at the risk of repeating myself, wouldn't have happened if Nicki had walked off the track. It was he who verbally provoked Holder and then physically clashed with Jack Holder and sparked the incident so can hardly claim to have been the innocent party. But it was hardly the worst thing any of us have seen surely. JUST to add, not suggesting Nicki deliberately clashed with Chris's younger brother, he just happened to be in the way when Nicki decided to walk away.

WOULDN'T know how to...

And if Nicki had walked straight off the track there would have been no pushing and shoving. As posted before that do not condone what happened by the pit gate but it was reactive no proactive and the direct result of Nicki deciding to confront Holder there and then so he cannot be entirely blameless on that score either. May be see that I am having a go at Nicki but I'm not. The scuffle, as with the first bend incident, was six of one and half a dozen of the other.

BUT the 'start" does include what happens in the first corner and the red lights did come on.

SOME would argue that it helps to show other British riders what they can and should aspire to.

IRIS ... that's just another opinion. Keep saying this until I am blue in the face: others, including ex-riders, current referees, fans, etc, etc, don't believe that Ackroyd got it wrong. Which simply underlines the fact that it wasn't an open and cut case. If the referee deems that a rider has deliberately tried to get a race restarted he will exclude that rider. Ackroyd did not believe that was what happened. I agree with him. You don't. And nothing will change that. FOR the record I didn't say Vincent doesn't matter, whether he buys Speedway Star or not. I simply stated that ultimately the only one who mattered was the referee.

WHAT if Briggo hadn't been sent sprawling in the 1972 World Final. Would he have won that? What if ... that's life. Holder has proved his worth after 12 rounds, not just one race, and in my humble opinion has been then outstanding rider this year. And, as stated previously, Nicki wasn't excluded either. He had a second chance but was beaten fair and square by Holder as he had been in Heat 13. He hardly 'stole' the title. WITH respect, your interpretation of the rules is not shared by those who matter.

IF you haven't grasped that by now you never will. And your analogy above doesn't really work because Holder didn't break the rules. Had he done so he would have been excluded. But he didn't and wasn't.

ISN'T it far better when there is an element of doubt to have a race with four rather than three riders? Nothing to do with sphericals ... more like commonsense.

NO they don't. That only applies once the referee has deemed the race to have started fairly. Until that moment he can stop a race and rerun it without any exclusions. You must have seen thousands of races rerun with "all four back" after one or more rider falls on the first bend. There was nothing out of the ordinary that occurred in Torun. Ackroyd looked at the replays but in his mind they only confirmed his initial reaction: Unsatisfactory start, all four back. Cannot see why so many have a problem with that.

CERTAINLY don't have anything against Nicki. Plenty of riders cut the corner at Torun and elsewhere. Prague is (or at least was) a classic. It's not illegal and becomes so only if both wheels cross the white line. So, to answer your question in one word: no. The 'start' of a race obviously includes what happens on the first corner. Just how far is at the referee's discretion. Phil Silvers: this one will probably run and run like Carter and Penhall. So, not the end of it. And certainly not because you think your opinion is absolute. Incidentally, one other GP referee who was there (not British) fully concurred with Craig Ackroyd. Ultimately Holder beat Pedersen twice on the night and was, at the conclusion of 12 rounds, the rightful champion. Throughout the season there has been plenty of incidents when referee's decisions might have gone the other way. Both Holder and Pedersen can lay claim to unfair exclusions. This time both had a second bite at the cherry. Which, in my book at least, seems fair.

WITH two riders down on the track? Didn't look like a satisfactory start to me.

UNSATISFACTORY start, referee has the option of stopping the race and restarting with all four riders. That is in the rulebook.

WOULD agree with that

YOU are quite entitled to your opinion but fortunately thousands don't agree and vote as such every week. However, what I do object to is your choice of words. Overpriced toilet paper, vastly expensive and super thin. I doubt very much that you have any idea how much ut costs to produce magazines these days, we don't use toilet paper and, for the record, by December the 52 issues of Speedway Star published in 2012 will have included a record number of pages. There is far too much vitriol displayed on this forum, which is why so many treat it with such disdain. And what on earth has this go9t to do with Chris Holder being World Champion? So, back on topic, I think he will be a great World Champion. He has matured enormously on and off the track, is young, has personality, is photogenic and a real racer.

DON'T agree. Sure Craig would have made the same decision, unsatisfactory start, all four back. At the post-GP Press Conference Nicki said that had he been on the inside he would have done exactly the same. Still believe that there was an ulterior motive behind some of his histrionics after hitting the dirt. Trees has a point about the Holder brothers but that doesn't alter the fact that they should not have been there. Not part of his pit crew and therefore shouldn't have been where they were. How can the referee put the red lights on before contact ... it was the contact between the two riders that caused the "unsatisfactory start."

NO love lost between Ryan and Chris ... but you miss the point. It cannot have been as clear cut as you, and even Ryan suggest, because many people believe that Holder was not at fault and that it was a racing incident. Therefore the verdict was not one of absolute fact. It was a matter of opinion, seen in different ways by different people. There was an element of doubt, enough to persuade the referee to put all four back. It is pure supposition to say that a referee from a different country would have excluded Chris. You have absolutely no evidence to back that up. Craig is a top referee and made his decision on what he saw. Incidentally, it is not a decision based on 'first bend bunching.' It is 'an unsatisfactory start.' Also, a rider has to have both wheels over the curb to be excluded.