Tabashir

I quite like it. I think it adds another dimension and a new set of discussion points for riders, fans and commentary. Whether or not having the 'best' pick makes a real or predictable difference over time is another matter. Antonio's performance certainly leads to this view, albeit on a very limited data set. However, for years, we've seen interviews with riders where they've lamented they got a 'bad draw', at least this gives them an opportunity to do something proactive to get a better one. I believe that at this level, so much is also down to psychology on the day. Some riders just seem to do better when faced with a 'tougher' position so in fact having a 'bad' set of gates makes them up their game. Conversely, for a different rider, having a good set of gates could lead to some element of complacency. I'm not saying anyone in the series gets obviously complacent but at this level, minuscule differences add up. With the qualifying being televised, it's something more for the fans to watch and engage with so it's good to try these things. Ultimately, if you are not interested in it, then you don't have to watch it. However, the alternative being a simple lottery, surely this is more interesting than that?

Thanks for the posting. Been trying to find where it is published. Any chance of a link please?

Sad news, RIP Bob.

I'm not sure that's what @fastgater meant. He was talking about riders that are not good at gating so usually have to pass in the race, aka 'racers', Bomber being a notable example. I don't think he was talking about riders that are known for 'roll starts'. It would actually be likely to give 'racers' an advantage since their lack of gating skills would be more or less negated.

Not sure why, but the forums don't allow me to 'like' posts. Two false starts and one false positive. Although I mentioned the GP, my main concern was league racing, since that is what really needs to attract (and retain) spectators. Also with the GPs, you tend to be taking in the atmosphere (or watching from the comfort and warmth of your armchair) so it's less of a drag. On a drizzling, cold evening sat waiting for multiple restarts is certainly more of a put-off, especially for newbies or casual supporters. Totally agree. Admittedly after many years they've got rid of the 'joker' rule in league now. I know it was called a tactical ride but everyone I explained it to likened it to a joker. Agreed. It may be harder at the lower levels to afford transponders, beams and the like and I have no clue how much it would cost. However, maybe introducing at top level then cascading to lower leagues if successful could help at least prevent the lower leagues losing money on an experiment. Hard to tell from a distance, but definitely looks further than that to me. If they were really less than 3" away then it would be impossible to jump without touching the tapes, yet here we are. Yup, would be far less irritating if they just came back round. No 2 mins for a restart.

I see your point @OveFundinFan, just think that we've maybe gone too far the other way. Speedway is at it's essence very simple. It can be very exciting but all the rules (and delays) can detract from that. As @DontForgetTheFuelTapsBruv mentions, maybe starting them closer to the tapes so they can't move without touching them is the answer. Or as mentioned in another thread, transponders so that there can be no arguments.

I know it is cheating *now* because that is the rule *now*. My question was more why did the rule get brought in from the time it wasn't a rule, thus wasn't cheating (and should we go back to the original rules). Couldn't agree more, except it's not just GPs. I pay to see speedway racing, not draw out the evening listening to the same pop tracks over a tannoy each week and drinking the fizzy 'beer' on offer, even though due to delays and restarts that's what I end up doing! 'Certainly when I've taken non-speedway friends along, they have generally enjoyed the racing but can't understand why they've been there over 2 hours to see 15 mins of racing. Makes me think this is one thing that is not helping speedway's popularity. Although the last couple of seasons, I think there has been an improvement, there is definitely a marked difference in some refs on how quickly the 2 mins comes on between heats. I'm sure some of them read it as there should be at least 4 minutes before the 2 mins comes on...!

Sorry if this has been asked before, I did search the forums but couldn't see anything... We have a rule that if you touch the tapes, you are excluded. This is pretty much black and white. If it was just this rule, you could attempt to jump the start, but if you got it wrong, you'd be excluded. Simple. However, we also have the 'unsatisfactory start' rule where riders can be judged to have moved before the tapes even if they didn't touch them. Way less black and white and more complicated. It's very rare to go a meeting without a few restarts even if nobody has actually touched the tapes. This, together with the pit gates opening and more messing about before the restart draws things out further. As a fan on the terraces waiting to see racing, it certainly doesn't add anything to the meeting. We now have the further addition of a warning system in the GPs and from the commentary, it appears the FIM have a real bee in their bonnet about people jumping the start. My memory could be playing tricks on me but I'm sure back in the 80s I remember only seeing restarts on an actual tape touching offence. Last night at Cardiff just took the biscuit with the ref stopping the race then admitting there was no problem with the start. I realise this is FIM diktat but I guess I just don't understand why we need this second rule. I realise it is also used to allow all-four-back aka bunching, but for an issue before the tapes have gone up, what is the value?

Thanks for the info here. I've been searching all over BT site trying to find the official source of this but cannot see it anywhere. I found this but it's a third party site: http://sport-onthebox.com/2017/04/05/bt-sport-2017-live-speedway-schedule/ Was this the site you used or is there an official one somewhere?

Shocker of a ref decision really. Should have been excluded under the 2 min rule and rerun with Kyle off 15m once he had moved forward signalling he was 'ready to race'. However, a question for those more knowledgeable of the rulebook: Under 15.3.4, if he had not moved forward and instead continued to adjust his goggles, would he have got away with the timer running out as he would have been 'under the control of the start marshal'? With the form of the reserves that night, it may still have been a 5-1. However, we can never know the outcome of what that would or not have been. It would be a nice touch for MF/NM to offer to at least split the difference in the interests of sportsmanship and dock 2 points from the Poole score. I guess that probably isn't in the rulebook either so it would have to be 'In the interests of Speedway'! For those on here that say that the SCB not adjusting the result after the match will make a further mockery of an amateur sport, citing that most 'serious' sports will change results after a game, I'll just leave you to cast your mind back to this incident in the most popular sport in the world: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8771294.stm . The result wasn't changed and I don't think you saw a mass decline in football fans because of it. Admittedly there was a lot of mickey takes of FIFA. I don't follow many other sports so I'm no authority, but from the post-match alterations I can recall, most are to do with applying/cancelling a ban or other disciplinary rather than affecting the actual result. I'm sure somebody will post to prove me wrong though

I was expecting some disagreement, but was hoping for some enlightening reasons to go along with it.

I seem to remember in the long distant past when a lot of riders only turned up with one bike there was a club 'spare' that could be used in the event of a breakdown. To reduce costs, transport and the need to have separate kit just for the UK, would it be possible to have some sort of club owned bike system where riders that are in the squad can elect to use these instead of maintaining their own? I know riders like their own setups, tuning etc and I'm sure there are a myriad of potential issues that could be levelled against this idea, but just putting it out there.

Awesome job Andy. Works perfectly for me on my Archlinux and Ubuntu boxes (running MythTV frontends) and my Galaxy Note 2 running CyanogenMod. That may be all it is doing, but it took me a lot less time to view the howto video and install the software than it would have done to find all of these clips. Particularly as even at this early stage with minimal content there are clips that I have just enjoyed (or will be when I get time) that I wouldn't even have thought of looking for. For a lot of folks, particularly those that are not tech savvie, I think "very useful" may be quite a sizeable understatement.

If Darcy's points are to be struck from the record for that period, then it's clear that KL are the rightful table toppers. Whether you agree with the FIM or not, they have said the points should go, surely that is the result. In the UK now, and at the time of this all happening, there is a presumption of 'innocent until proven guilty'. A quick hearing then ban would have resolved whether Darcy could ride for all parties. This didn't happen. As it was, the Poole management could hardly be expected to replace one of their heat leaders on an accusation alone during a period where the FIM had not suspended him. In fact, given the law at the moment, that could arguably left them open to a loss of earnings claim by Darcy should he have ended up not being suspended. Nobody can say for sure what would have happened had KL had the choice. They would still have had to beat 2 out of the 3 teams and they were decimated by injury. Yes, they may have chosen Bees. Would they have won over 2 legs? I wouldn't have put much on it. If they had beaten Bees, then with the delay, they may have been a little stronger again when they met Pirates but we'll never know. To me, this all goes to show that there should be 2 cups, one for the league winners, then one for the playoffs. A team, in this case KL, should have something to show for the fact they were the best over the season, not for the few matches after the league end which is far more susceptible to both injury and fatigue for the riders.

Totally agree with the comments on here that the reasons for the decision and the views of the folks involved in the decision to abandon should be made public. I'd go a step further and also ask for the same if there is a question of whether to abandon and it's decided to continue. I've commented on another thread that refs leave too long between heats generally. The way that Christina Turnbull ran the meeting at Poole on Thursday demonstrated how a meeting could be run and get the entire meeting done in under 75 mins, which included a 10 minute break for the rain to ease. I know Sky want to egg it all up in the name of showbiz but the delay to the start and slow progress through it has robbed both teams of properly deciding the final on the track. Who were you talking about SCB? The first sentence I assumed it was Matt Ford but there was an interview with him at the end. Also seemed that Bomber agreed with the decision to call it off from what he said.