Sir Sidney

Thanks for that. We are getting somewhere! We both agree that the statement is poorly written (and wasn't well proof read before its initial issue). I have read the regulation a number of times. As the regulations don't include the words 'wholly' or 'completely', or indeed any other similar words, then any interpretation is just that - an interpretation. The relevant regulations also do not include the word 'tyre' (the only part which is contact with the track) nor say which part of the wheel has to cross the inner edge to constitute a disqualification (given that no part of the wheel is in touch with the track or inner edge. As you say - read ONLY the words in the original rule (regulation). The SCB could end this at a stroke, by giving more information and evidence on how it reached its decision. I'll bet the relevant regulations are amended for next season

I'm an imposter obviously. But deflection won't help! You still haven't said what you believe the SCB statement confirms in detail and how that will be applied in the next occurrence of such a decision that a ref has to make

So, just as a reminder, the SCB statement says 'Following the 2nd Leg of the Championship Play Off Final on Wednesday 7th October 2026 between Poole and Scunthorpe, the Scunthorpe club lodged an appeal against the decision of the result of the Super Heat, where it was alleged that Poole Rider Zach Cook had breached SCB Regulation - • 012.1.11 Leaving the Track A rider whose machine crosses the inner edge of the track with 2 wheels must be disqualified unless, in the opinion of the Referee, the action was taken in the interests of safety for other riders or the rider involved was forced off course by another rider. Having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached, however due to the result being announced this was now a Statement of Fact and any appeal is inadmissible as per SCB Regulation 018.1.2 a) Therefore, the result stands as declared, and the Scunthorpe Promotion have accepted the decision.' So, what fact has the SCB declared? 'A rider whose machine crosses the inner edge of the track with 2 wheels must be disqualified unless, in the opinion of the Referee, the action was taken in the interests of safety for other riders or the rider involved was forced off course by another rider.' It has therefore confirmed that the machine crossed the inner edge of the track with two wheels. As it hasn't said how it has arrived at that conclusion it may well be that it decided that both wheels were over the centre green side of the inner edge. The reality is that you can't conclude what fact has been decided upon from that statement. If you have a different statement that validates your version of the facts I'd be very happy to see it. You also say 'You can't argue against facts' despite that being exactly what the SCB has done by saying the referee got it wrong despite it being a 'statement of fact' which makes an appeal inadmissible

People don't move on because the SCB has not properly explained its decision. So when a similar issue occurs ( and its not beyond the realms of possibility it will happen tomorrow) we will have the same argument again.

The fact is that the regulations relating to this are very poorly written and completely ambiguous Your point about the inner edge is well made. The part of the wheels that have to cross the inner edge ( however that is defined) is not stated. No part of the wheel is actually in contact with the inner edge - the tyre is, and that is not even mentioned. What about the part of the wheel which is closest to the main part of the bike, and which will cross the line before the part of the tyre touching the line will? In whichever definition is accepted then how much of the tyre / wheel must cross the line? 1mm or the whole tyre / wheel in touch with the line. You can come up with any number of definitions. All the SCB needs to do is evidence its decision. Presumably referee training must cover that and should be able to be evidenced? If it can't be then that alone demonstrates an ambiguity

So let's assume for the moment that the boundary is the side of the white line next to the track. How much of the tyre has to be on the line to constitute crossing? All of it, or 1mm? ( Also bearing in mind that a chalk line is acceptable and so may not be sharp, and the regulations don't even use the term tyre). All that definition does is moves the decision a bit to the right. I have no doubt the regulations will be re-written over the winter, and may well include a better definition of the inner edge of the track and width of line. This will just continue to rumble on unless the SCB makes a further statement confirming the detail of its decision.

So even you have given two different explanations. Did he leave the track if both wheels were 'on the line', or if his 'back wheel has crossed the inner part of the white line' ? It just demonstrates that there is ambiguity, and, as yet, you haven't provided any evidence from SCB of where any of your interpretations come from. I'm not intending to pick on your interpretations specifically, because many others have put their own views forward. SCB could clarify this immediately if it wanted to. I hope that the referee, both clubs and all riders are absolutely clear on the interpretation for the Premiership play off second leg, especially as Belle Vue's inner edge of the track is significantly different to a chalk line

So you are saying that on the line constitutes crossing the line? Other than by just writing out the regulations again can you evidence that that is the SCB's interpretation? Eg is it documented anywhere ? Is that the interpretation that referees are trained against and is communicated to clubs and riders? And let's not go to the point about which part of the wheel has crossed the line. I suspect we all take that as the part of the tyre in contact with the ground, but that isn't what it says. I understand that you may think I'm being pedantic, but regulations should be able to withstand the scrutiny of a pedant! Plus, I don't want such an occurrence to happen again. I'm going to Belle Vue on Friday. Given that the inner edge is of a completely different construction at the NSS, I hope the referee, clubs and riders have been fully briefed and are clear about what crossing the inner edge of the track actually means. The SCB could clarify this today and give certainty, and I'm pretty sure the regulations will be modified for next season.

I understand that could be the interpretation, but show me where it actually says that in the regs.

And all the SCB needs to say is that is the interpretation, because clarity is required where the regulation does not make it clear. I'll bet the regulation is re-written for next year For example: If you cross the road have you crossed it at the point you step off of the kerb or at the point you step up onto the kerb at the other side of the road? Id say the later. Between the two kerbs you are on the road. The speedway regulation says crossed not on Lots of sports have different interpretations that involve lines. There is normally not much ambiguity.

All the SCB needed to do was: - make clear its interpretation of the regulations ( eg what it determines crossing to be) - say what the ref considered and why that was wrong - publish any video evidence it has relied upon. Instead, all it has done is create even more discussion, not helped by its typographical error when it first published the news item ( by including the term 'admissable' instead of 'inadmissable' regarding any appeal.

I absolutely agree with you. The regulation as written is completely ambiguous - as demonstrated by numerous different interpretations on here. The SCB had a perfect chance here to explain its own interpretation, and to provide the evidence to support it. It has even had to update its own news release to change 'admissable' to 'inadmissable' regarding the appeal. Wholly unsatisfactory in all respects

The reality is that because the regulations do not define crossing, then your interpretation is no more valid than anyone elses. Using your interpretation then surely the part of the wheel closest to the engine 'crossed' the line first, but obviously didn't touch the line. As the reg doesn't mention touching, then it could mean any part or all. As is often the case, the speedway regulation is open to interpretation and needs to be re-written

That's just your interpretation. You are saying that touching the white line ( inner edge) equates to crossing the inner edge. I think you could equally interpret that regulation as crossing requiring the machine to be completely beyond the inner edge. And, on either situation, the regulations do not make clear which part of the wheel ( or tyre) has to cross the inner edge. Commonly we interpret that as the part of the tyre in touch with the ground, but the regulation doesn't actually say that. Another regulation that any competent lawyer would drive a coach and horses through.

Per the Regs All APD's used in British Speedway must have been previously and/or currently Homologated by the FIM. Replacement Inflatable APD's must be Grade A+. Inflatable APD’s must be inspected 7 years after installation, thereafter annually by the SCB Track Inspectors, to certify that it remains fit for purpose up to a maximum of 10 years. Non-inflatable APD’s will be inspected during the 3 yearly Homologation inspection