Sir Sidney

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

According to the regulations 'where provided the Referee must use multi angle re-play technology supplied by Eurosport, BSN and the tracks own streaming service via a monitor'

A Championship individual event won't take priority over the Premiership Grand Final

The relevant regulation is so poorly written that any barrister would drive a coach and horses through it '012.1.11Leaving 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' No doubt we all interpret that as the part of the tyre ( not wheel) in touch with the track, as I'm sure does every referee - but that isn't what it says. What about the rest of the wheel? (Similar to a football analogy - the whole of the ball must be over the whole of the line). The only people who would make money if Scunthorpe followed your advice would be the legal profession as usual.

5 venues in Manchester carry the 'national' prefix I can't speak for all the sports but plenty of major cycling events take place at the London and Glasgow velodromes. It's just a funding and prestige thing for Manchester City Council. I don't know why people get so worked up about it. What all clubs should be doing is building relationships with the relevant local Government bodies to explore partnerships and funding opportunities, and to explore how the club can be beneficial to the Council https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+sports+arenad+in+Manchester+carry+the+title+'national'&oq=how+many+sports+arenad+in+Manchester+carry+the+title+'national'&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTM1MjIzajBqNKgCAbACAQ&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&source=chrome.ob&ie=UTF-8

Response now received.

Brilliant. Thank you

Nothing as yet. I also emailed the SGP EMAIL address, but they just referred me back to the Torun email address

No response from either so far. I'll follow up again in the morning and post on here if I get any info. If all else fails we'll just have a longer lunch!

I have emailed Torun, but no reply as yet Thanks for the additional info

I've got tickets for the SGP at Torun. I can't find any info on whether separate tickets are required for qualifying and the sprint race. Has anyone got any info they could direct me to please? Thanks

Has anyone seen if any TV viewing figures have been released by ITV for the British Final, or know if they will be?

So that's a bit more than 'monitoring the situation '. Good to hear

Shouldn't BSPL be doing something active ( such as engaging with Deane Wood) rather than monitoring the situation?

As per the regs 014.8 CHAMPIONSHIP LEAGUE RIDERS 014.8.1 Qualifying Criteria The number 1 rider from each team and additional riders will be determined by MA from the green sheets. A total of 16 riders ensuring all teams are represented. This will determine the line up for the Championship League Riders

It's crazy that British Speedway thinks it is more credible to use guest riders rather than a genuine replacement for a rider with a season ending injury. Of course, the regulation was changed after Belle Vue did that ( when the regs allowed it - unintentionally or otherwise) to bring in Robert Lambert to replace the injured Max Fricke a few years ago.

Focussing on her hairdressing career I believe

Can you provide the detail of the rule ( regulation) number that says that please?