Sir Sidney

FIM as below - says The maximum age (when applicable) finishes at the end of the year in which the competitor reaches the maximum age. So, using Luke Killeen as the example, if he was 21 in April 2026 he can only ride as an U21 rider in FIM competition until 31 December 2026, and would not be classed as an U21 next season https://www.fim-moto.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/2026/ISG.pdf 4.2 Age of riders and passengers Licences for riders and passengers are issued for FIM championships, only when the minimum age has been attained as below: Minimum Maximum FIM Speedway Grand Prix world championship 16 years - FIM SGP qualifying meetings (qualifiers + challenge) 16 years - FIM Speedway of nations - SoN 16 years - FIM Speedway world cup - SWC 16 years - FIM Ice Speedway world championship 16 years - FIM Ice Speedway of nations 16 years - FIM Long Track world championship 16 years - FIM Long Track of nations 16 years - FIM Speedway under 21 world championship - SGP2 16 years 21 years FIM Speedway of nations under 21 - SoN2 16 years 21 years FIM Speedway youth gold trophy | 85cc 11 years 15 years 16 | FIM TRACK RACING APPENDICES FIM Track Racing youth gold trophy | 125cc 11 years 16 years FIM SGP4 world championship | 190cc 11 years 13 years FIM Speedway youth world championship | 250cc - SGP3 13 years 16 years FIM Long Track U23 world cup | 500cc 16 years 23 years FIM Speedway Sidecar world cup | 1000cc 17 years - FIM women’s Speedway gold trophy | 250cc 13 years 16 years FIM women’s Speedway world cup | 500cc 16 years - The minimum age for each category starts on the competitor’s minimum age birthday. The maximum age (when applicable) finishes at the end of the year in which the competitor reaches the maximum age. For applicants aged over 50 years, please refer to the FIM medical code.

I guess we will just have to wait for confirmation, as with so many things at this time of the year

Need certainty - I presume clubs are aware, but all the publicity has been about 'under 21', and on that basis Luke will not meet the criteria.

I note the speedway white line has been painted, which is not required for stocks

So not U21 even at the start of the season? Have to see the definition I guess. Is it 21 and under or under 21?

Who is the second U21? Killeen is already 21 isn't he?

All it needs is referees to apply the regulations 012.1.2 Heats Heats shall be anti-clockwise of 4 laps duration, unless the SR’s state otherwise. In normal circumstances the time from the finish of a heat to the start of the next shall not exceed 4 minutes (including the 2 minute time allowance).

SCB has issued a regulation update, which although poorly drafted, again seems to intend that a rider has to cross the inner edge marking of the inner edge of the track, with both wheels, to be excluded. I.e. to be over the line not on the line

SCB has issued a regulation update, which although poorly drafted, again seems to intend that a rider has to cross the inner edge marking of the inner edge of the track, with both wheels, to be excluded. I.e. to be over the line not on the line

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.