Grachan

I think the would be the logical way to go, although I'm sure this was introduced because of lost revenue with restaged matches and seasons where teams couldn't complete all their fixtures. In a way, the 10 point cut off could be ok, but far too much is made of it. On Sky they don't shut up about the match being called at heat 10 whenever there is rain about. That and the comments of Zagar and Nicholls convinced Monday's match would be called off at heat 10 from watching on Sky, so was surprised it wasn't (as were the sky commentary team, who proceeded to go on as if all the riders heroes for a couple of races, and then express shock/horror when the meeting finally ended early). I also don't agree it should be up to the meeting co-ordinator (or whatever he's called) to call a rain off. It should be down to the referee and nobody else. Obviously the ref should take the opinions of the teams and others into account, but whatever he/she decides should be the only outcome.

Absolutely nothing. I just had a flashback moment that's all.

Because they gave it a good go, as one would hope they would. I don't really get why everyone is so bothered about it. Personally I reckon you're all bonkers, and because the nature of people's complaints about everything on this forum have, shall we say, jumped the shark, no complaints on here will ever be taken seriously by anyone that matters. Aren't you the guy who went on and on about some rain off in 2007? Ah, 2007. What a year that was.

Because they agreed to give it a go for another 2 heats after the heat 10 cut off point. Said so on the telly. So Belle Vue were given a couple of races to get back to within 6. They failed. The complaints on this thread are possibly the most ludicrous I,ve ever seen. It's ridiculous. I suggest you all go out in your cars the next time it's raining and try driving without windscreen wipers.

Why are people going on about the track? It wasn't abandoned because of the track. It was strange to carry on after heat 10, then call it off 2 races later, but I don't see why Swindon seem to be getting so much blame. Matej Zagar and Scott Nicholls both seemed far from happy with conditions and Kelvin Tatum never shut up about xalling it off all evening. In the end it was the decision of the stewward, who could easily have told them to get on with it.

Clearly they all agreed to do this. After all Scott Nicholls was quite vocal in saying conditions were dangerous when interviewed earlier.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Have you got me on ignore or something? I already pointed out that they said on tv that they had agreed to do 2 more heats after heat 10 and then have another look. Maybe everyone has me on ignore. Maybe I live in a parallel universe. Hello? Hello? Can anyone see my posts? Am I alone in the world?

Oh Gawd. You're all mental. They said on tv that they agreed to do 2 more races after heat 10 and take another look.

Nobody acted against the rules. Behave will ya!!

It was made pretty clear that they all agreed to do 2 more races after heat 10 and then make another decision. They asked the riders opinions, that's all. The riders didn't make the decisions. It was perhaps surprising, but the conspiracy theories we're getting here are just stupid.

From about heat 5 onwards the Sky commentators were going on about how it should be called off after geat 10. Then when it gets called off they complain. Scott Nicholls was complaining it was dangerous when they interviewed him earlier, then when it's called off he complains. I thought it seemed ok to continue, but i'm not the ref.

That would have been 1976. In 1977 he didn't ride at White City and they used r/r all year, winning the league title.

I do. I was at that meeting. It's funny how when tracks became slippery everyone would ride slower yet Lovaas would carry on as normal. I seem to recall he used to practice on frozen lakes in Norway.

Best rider in the world if it was raining.

In the article Middlo doesn't say he doesn't know the reasons they can't have a guest. It's the interpretation of the journalist that makes it look that way.

Is that a whoosh? Of course speedway clubs can't afford roofs. They can barely keep open as it is, and are constantly coming up with cost cutting measures.

I remember that picture. I had it glued into my folder. I can picture it clearly in my head even now.

Very true. I was 13 when Gary Petersen was killed and I kept all the clippings plus went back through old Speedway Stars and cut out all references and photos and kept them in a folder. It was weird. Thinking back, it was, perhaps, my first "death" experience (even though I wasn't there and I don't think I even saw him ride).

PC later admitted in one of his books that he was actually too scared to ride that night. It was the same with me regarding Gary Petersen and then Tommy Jansson. I saw Tommy ride a couple of times in 1976, and got his autograph at Swindon when he rode there in the Golden Helmet.

Good decision from the ref then. Rob Lyons admitted he didn't know the rule.

I don't see why he shouldn't if he's new to the sport.

Unless Simon Gustafsson is in the race.

Do you really? Or are you just pretending? For me, I think it is a positive thing. I've been watching more speedway this year then I have in recent years because of it. It's also resulted in added interest in the household and attending more meetings than I have done in recent years. And, yes, this is purely because we've been watching these live feeds.

The "3 years" was a clever ploy. It takes any immediacy out of things. I don't know why Coventry fans have done nothing. Fan campaigns had a big effect at Swindon and still it carries on at Oxford with certain positive obstacles being passed all the time.