Try These For Rule Changes !

[father jack]

Some ideas I have, I guess they are there to be shot down in flames !!

 

Tactial Ride to be scrapped.

 

Tactical substitutes to be allowed if eight or more points down, but cannot be used in heat 8 or after heat 12. Hopefully this will prevent riders throwing heat 13 which has been known to happen.

 

The Golden double(15m back) if 10points down, but not in heat 8 or after heat 12.

 

Guest riders, 8 day rule to apply, plus if the rider rode for a club in the previous 2 seasons he cannot guest for anyone at that track, eg. Scott Nicholls can't guest at Ipswich, Lee Richardson at Peterborough, MikeColes at Exeter. Riders can only appear three times at any track, this would prevent teams calling up specialists being called up who tend to score more than the rider they replace.

 

Points Limit to be the average of the leauges final declared sevens.

 

Bonus point scrapped, 3pts away win, 2pts away draw & home win 1pt home draw

 

Now have some fun picking holes in that lot !!!!

[Kevin Meynell]

Tactial Ride to be scrapped.

 

And so say all of us!

 

Tactical substitutes to be allowed if eight or more points down, but cannot be used in heat 8 or after heat 12. Hopefully this will prevent riders throwing heat 13 which has been known to happen.

 

I've always been in favour of not allowing tactical subs until 8 points down. I also think that would reduce the incentive to throw races, so I wouldn't see a problem with allowing tactical subs up to Heat 14.

 

The Golden double(15m back) if 10points down, but not in heat 8 or after heat 12.

 

Never liked the concept of the rule, and it's next to useless anyway.

 

Guest riders, 8 day rule to apply, plus if the rider rode for a club in the previous 2 seasons he cannot guest for anyone at that track

 

I don't see that tinkering with the guest system is the solution. It would be better to find a system to do away with it completely - perhaps by giving a points advantage to weakened teams.

 

Points Limit to be the average of the leauges final declared sevens.

 

That would more-or-less be what it is now. I'd prefer to introduce a points limit that prevents cheque book speedway, but allows teams to naturally develop up to a certain limit. For example, you could make the points limit (say) 42.00 without bonus, but allow an extra (say) 0.50 points for each rider retained from the previous season. Thus, if a team kept all its riders from the previous season it could build-up to a maximum 45.50, but if it only kept four it would only be able to built-up to 44.00.

 

The aim is to give riders a chance to improve without jeopardising their place next season (because a team would lose points by dropping them), but equally it wouldn't allow teams to get stronger-and-stronger.

 

 

Bonus point scrapped, 3pts away win, 2pts away draw & home win 1pt home draw

 

I don't object to having more points for an away win, but I dislike the idea of awarding different points for a draw. In addition, the bonus point is important for keeping a meeting alive if a team is otherwise being beaten. What about 5 points for an away win, 4 points for a home win, 2 points each for a draw, and a bonus point for a home and away aggregate win?

[AndyM]

Father Jack, you've obviously thought about this to some degree and come out with several ideas that could well turn out to be positive changes. However, without thorough investigation to consider what the full consequences might be, it would be no better than the rule tinkering the BSPA currently choose to adopt.

 

For examples, who knows what negative behaviours might be induced by changing the tactical sub rules yet again without thorough examination?

 

We need to start with thorough analysis of the problems and the desired outcomes before knocking up more potentially spurious solutions. As far as I'm aware, the BSPA doesn't do long-terms strategic planning, in fact their planning horizon rarely extends beyond one season ahead. Time they started to think about the future of the sport and how we need to get there before it goes any further downyhill.

Edited April 28, 2005 by AndyM

[Daniel Smith]

Why couldn't team averages total up to the previous league champions averages i.e.

 

2005 premier league winners where Kings Lynn with 52.31 average

2006 every team can build there teams to that average and the league winners can keep the same team to try and deffend there title

[Diesel]

Why couldn't team averages total up to the previous league champions averages i.e.

 

2005 premier league winners where Kings Lynn with 52.31 average

2006 every team can build there teams to that average and the league winners can keep the same team to try and deffend there title

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

2006 - The league champions who built there team to the previous limit (52.31) have 4 riders who increase their averages significantly. Finish on a total of 58 points.

 

2007 - Teams build to 58 points, and besides Berwick being able to include seven crap Eastern Europeans on 8 point averages, the champions again increase the overall team average to something like 62 points.

 

2008 - Teams build to 62 points.....

 

 

Where will it end?

[Malcolm]

No points limit

Tacticle rider changes allowed within team as in soccer. In other words new rider can be brought in, but rider already named and riding that night cannot ride in someone elses spot.

No guest riders

[Kevin Meynell]

Why couldn't team averages total up to the previous league champions averages

 

The purpose of the points limit is to ensure that better riders become available to weaker teams. There's no point having a team equalisation system that doesn't force the strong teams to release riders.

 

I do believe there needs to be some sort of system for teams to naturally improve up to a pre-defined limit, but I don't believe that teams should automatically be allowed to build-up to a high limit.

[lionheart]

Rider control has always been a bone of contention. There are always supporters who complain that their team has been penalised for succeeding in the previous season. On the other hand there are supporters who love it when their team amass a cricket score to defeat the visitors. To me there was nothing more thrilling than a 40-38 (In old money).

 

I think before looking at team averages we need to look at match formulae. We are talking of a TEAM sport here, so surely the heat points should be 4-3-2-0 (Which I know has been used in some events). I would hope that this would encourage more team riding, and discourage the big guns from blasting into the sunset knowing that to do so could often mean that they would be on the wrong end of a 4-5 heat disadvantage.

 

As a means of balancing home advantage I would give home heat leaders fewer rides and home reserves/2nd strings more rides. The visitors reserves/2nd strings would benefit from having to face fewer rides against home heat leaders.

In an attempt to ensure tight matches I would RETAIN tactical rides (That will draw some Flak ) but would look very closely at the rules governing tactical rides. Perhaps heat 15 (Assuming we retained Ht 15) could contain 1 programmed rider and only 1 nominated rider from each team.

 

Whatever changes (IF any) are implemented it needs to be to ensure fewer runaway victories and tighter matches for those fee paying spectators who enjoy such matches.

[BertHoven]

Father Jack, you've obviously thought about this to some degree and come out with several ideas that could well turn out to be positive changes.  However, without thorough investigation to consider what the full consequences might be, it would be no better than the rule tinkering the BSPA currently choose to adopt. 

 

For examples, who knows what negative behaviours might be induced by changing the tactical sub rules yet again without thorough examination?

 

We need to start with thorough analysis of the problems and the desired outcomes before knocking up more potentially spurious solutions.  As far as I'm aware, the BSPA doesn't do long-terms strategic planning, in fact their planning horizon rarely extends beyond one season ahead.  Time they started to think about the future of the sport and how we need to get there before it goes any further downyhill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Andy,

 

Have you taken leave of your senses, old friend. You're not really suggesting that we should deny those high-powered executives who govern our sport their annual Mediterranean junket - are you?

 

Do you actually suggest that they meet in Starbucks in rainy Rugby for their AGM.

Splendid idea, old chap, might get some logical decisions then - what!

 

Much mirthful merriment, Millwards!

 

Bert.

[Kevin Meynell]

I think before looking at team averages we need to look at match formulae.

 

Whatever race format or quirky rules you can think of, the teams with the best riders will still win. You fundamentally need to ensure that teams are roughly of equal strength, or the weakest teams are able to obtain the pick of the best new riders.

 

Unfortunately, the current points limit has become punitive rather than being there to prevent one or two teams from running away with things. That is where it has failed, but some sort of team equalisation will always be needed, particularly in speedway where differences in ability are magnified more than in many sports.

[Splatty]

That would more-or-less be what it is now. I'd prefer to introduce a points limit that prevents cheque book speedway, but allows teams to naturally develop up to a certain limit. For example, you could make the points limit (say) 42.00 without bonus, but allow an extra (say) 0.50 points for each rider retained from the previous season. Thus, if a team kept all its riders from the previous season it could build-up to a maximum 45.50, but if it only kept four it would only be able to built-up to 44.00.

 

The aim is to give riders a chance to improve without jeopardising their place next season (because a team would lose points by dropping them), but equally it wouldn't allow teams to get stronger-and-stronger.

 

I like this one Kevin! Can I put the 'splatty slant' on it as well and also introduce far more substantial rewards for having a Brit than 2.5% reduction

 

and.................after all the ridiculous signings made this year purely to stack up some extra contracts the sport should definitely be looking at limiting the amount of changes a team can make in a season - I was thinking that 2 would be a fair figure (+ replacements for injury of course)

[iris123]

Whatever race format or quirky rules you can think of, the teams with the best riders will still win. You fundamentally need to ensure that teams are roughly of equal strength, or the weakest teams are able to obtain the pick of the best new riders.

 

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With the Joker though,is that really the case.We can see the team that isn't as good overall but with one or two good riders take advantage of a quirky rule and a bad refereeing decision here or there, win.

[Grachan]

With the Joker though,is that really the case.We can see the team that isn't as good overall but with one or two good riders take advantage of a quirky rule and a bad refereeing decision here or there, win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was the same with the old tactical substitute rule though.

[Kevin Meynell]

It was the same with the old tactical substitute rule though.

 

But a losing team still needed to beat the opposition!

 

I do think there does need to be a mechanism to allow teams losing heavily to stay in touch, although I always thought that tactical subs should only be allowed when eight rather than six points down.

[Graham]

Tactical substitutes to be allowed if eight or more points down, but cannot be used in heat 8

 

Why does averyone who advocates a return to the old t/s rule suggest a ban on them in heat 8? Do not give me any rubbish about protecting young defenceless riders from big, bad, nasty heat leaders. They learn far more from racing these guys than they do against fellow reserves who they've already met earlier in the match.

 

Besides it was always very satisfying to see tac subs come a cropper in heat 8 or 14.

 

Heat 8 tac subs? Bring them on I say.

 

Graham.

[Guest nobby nomad]

Here's a quick question with regards to the rule changes.

 

When a rider scores double points - does he get paid for double points?

 

This rule was brought in for one reason only - to save promoters money as it isicheaper for a rider to score double points in a race he is already in rather than start and point money in a race that he wasn't.

[SCB]

Why does averyone who advocates a return to the old t/s rule suggest a ban on them in heat 8?  Do not give me any rubbish about protecting young defenceless riders from big, bad, nasty heat leaders.  They learn far more from racing these guys than they do against fellow reserves who they've already met earlier in the match.

 

Besides it was always very satisfying to see tac subs come a cropper in heat 8 or 14.

 

Heat 8 tac subs?  Bring them on I say.

 

Graham.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SPOT ON!!!

 

Prehaps we should have a format where every rider rides against every other once to make things fair. That would really upset the poor little riders. They alreayd have it easy by having heats 2, 8, 12 and 14 and not having to have a ride in heats 13 and 15, what more do they want? No tac subs in heat 8 it seems!!

 

BTW, why heat 8? Heats 8, 12 an 14 are interchangable these days with the rules about your 2,3 & 4 and 6 & 7 being able to ride in any order, so do we ban tac subs in heats 1-4, heat 8, heat 12 and heat 14, as well as heat 15 and of course heat 13 is unlikely. So tac subs only in heats 6,7,9,10 and 11 but wait, we have reserves in some of them rides, we should ban tac subs in them heats too!!!

 

Stick to the normal tac sub and the 15 metre Golde Double, I have seen some great heat 8's where the heatleader was outgated and in some cases beat, that includes heats where Newport have been the one using the tac sub and lossing out.

[Graham]

This rule was brought in for one reason only - to save promoters money

 

That's the thing though. It hasn't saved them a penny.

 

When the rule change was announced at the end of 2003, you can be sure that every EL and PL rider of any stature got his calculator out and worked out how much he would lose through not having "traditional" t/s rides available to him the following season.

 

This loss would undoubtedly have been factored into pay negotiations for 2004.

 

So there you have it. A silly rule which has also proven to be a false economy.

 

Graham.

[Pepper]

Have you taken leave of your senses, old friend. You're not really suggesting that we should deny those high-powered executives who govern our sport their annual Mediterranean junket - are you?

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

BSPA conference was actually held in london this year

 

If you scrap the guest rule what do you do if two or more riders in one team are injured?

 

I do think there should be a limit on how long guests can be used to cover for an injured rider. So for long-term injuries teams would have to replace the rider rather than use a guest for months (e.g. stoke)

[TonyM]

If it aint broke don’t fix it!

 

Guests are the biggest single factor in making speedway a ‘misunderstood’ sport. We know we need them but try explaining why Leigh Adams is riding for poole next week when he normally rides for Swindon and you are bombarded by comments like “so if Fowler is injured we can have Rooney instead? Ha Ha Ha” It’s got to be rider replacement every time and NO guests for speedway to really be taken seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry but I couldnt disagree more about guests, in such an individual sport we have to do all we can to get as many evenly matched meetings as possible and to get this we need some form of substitute system. The football analogy is looking at a different sport where individuals have less of an impact on a team and even then look at the outcry over Chelsea having a reserve team of internationals which by many is deemed unfair. Perhaps the only thing would be to have a number of 'central contract' riders whos contracts were held by the BSPA and were there purely to act as substitutes for the top riders (with lower order riders being covered by more squad systems / doubling up)