Gate Positions

[enotian]

I think I'm right in saying that the current heat format results in all riders having one ride from each gate position? Forgive me if I'm wrong.

 

Although I believe that this is the fairest approach how about allowing teams trailing by say 6 points to alter the gate positions to their own advantage?

 

It could be something as simple as allowing the trailing team to dictate a move from column A to column B gates or the more specific re-positioning of any rider, although odd or even gates would still need to be upheld.

 

Sure it wouldn't have an effect in all meetings but I do feel that it's less open to ridicule than double points.

 

Programmed gate positions seem to have been the norm forever but I'm sure that they were only introduced in the 80's to stop the best riders always getting the best gates.

 

Whilst I agree with that if allowing changing gate positions as a tactic can result in closer matches it might be worth considering.

[suzuki star 882]

Why should then winning team be penalised (as they were with the tactical ride rules) for being good enough to lead by several points?

[barrow boy]

I think it's worth trying for a season. It used to be done but in conjunction with the old TS rule.

[Kevin Meynell]

Programmed gate positions seem to have been the norm forever but I'm sure that they were only introduced in the 80's

 

They were, and prior to that, teams used to have choice of gate positions when 6 points down... plus ca change etc..

[TonyM]

Why should then winning team be penalised (as they were with the tactical ride rules) for being good enough to lead by several points?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most rules even themselves out over the course of a season in terms of being penalised / using them to your advantage

 

Generally the idea of any 'tinkering' should be to keep meetings alive as speedway can rapidly turn into one sided processions (were you there last week?)

 

Personally I prefer the changes that are likely to produce better racing:

1) Letting ANY lower averaged rider replace another subject to minimum of 3 rides for each rider (thus an in form rider should have more opportunities and produce better racing). This would also provide better cover for 'in meeting' injuries. I would also prefer to see all teams start as 7 v 7

2) Option of losing team changing of gate positions, could be abused but if thought through with reasonable boundaries (limited to certain heats / swap from A to B or B to A once in a meeting) could provide an element of help to a losing team

3) Introducing 'bonus' points for away scores rather than aggregate wins to encourage more balanced team building and lessen the incentive for massive home advantage to 'build up a lead'

4) Better pre meeting practice available particularly for away riders

 

Rules that 'keep the score close' but do nothing to add to the quality of racing are IMO just a smoke screen and I would put the tactical ride in this category

[suzuki star 882]

Yes I was there and I do think that that result was a once in a blue moon result, or 40 odd years in Kings Lynn's case. I am all for trying to acheive good close racing and results, but I believe the answer is more equal teams rather than messing with the meeting rules.

[barrow boy]

Most rules even themselves out over the course of a season in terms of being penalised / using them to your advantage

 

Generally the idea of any 'tinkering' should be to keep meetings alive as speedway can rapidly turn into one sided processions (were you there last week?)

 

Personally I prefer the changes that are likely to produce better racing:

1) Letting ANY lower averaged rider replace another subject to minimum of 3 rides for each rider (thus an in form rider should have more opportunities and produce better racing).  This would also provide better cover for 'in meeting' injuries.  I would also prefer to see all teams start as 7 v 7 

2) Option of losing team changing of gate positions, could be abused but if thought through with reasonable boundaries (limited to certain heats / swap from A to B or B to A once in a meeting) could provide an element of help to a losing team

3) Introducing 'bonus' points for away scores rather than aggregate wins to encourage more balanced team building and lessen the incentive for massive home advantage to 'build up a lead'

4) Better pre meeting practice available particularly for away riders

 

Rules that 'keep the score close' but do nothing to add to the quality of racing are IMO just a smoke screen and I would put the tactical ride in this category

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would allow any rider to be replaced once only by any other rider once only when a team is so many points behind.

 

I would allow the losing team to have the choice of starting positions from heat 2.

 

I would award 4 points for a win by 10 points or more with 0 points going to the losing team. 3 points for a win by less than 10 points with one point going to the losers. 2 points each for a draw. Aggregate point still up for grabs over the 2 legs.

 

Can't see why each team can't have seperate pre match practice sessions of say 10 mins each.

 

Might see some closer matches then

[Kevin Meynell]

1) Letting ANY lower averaged rider replace another subject to minimum of 3 rides for each rider (thus an in form rider should have more opportunities and produce better racing).

 

I don't think this is actually such a bad idea, but I'd restrict it to the non-heat leaders.

 

3) Introducing 'bonus' points for away scores rather than aggregate wins to encourage more balanced team building and lessen the incentive for massive home advantage to 'build up a lead'

 

Again, I think this would be better than the current bonus point. I'd award (say) 5 points for a 10 or more point win (or whatever the TR/TS differential is), 4 points for a less than 10 point win, 2 points for a draw, 1 point for a loss by less than 10, and 0 points for a loss by 10 or more.

[Subedei]

Something along these lines, perhaps:

 

http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/ind...showtopic=13835

[TonyM]

Something along these lines, perhaps:

 

http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/ind...showtopic=13835

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, thanks for the link Subedei

 

Not sure why there was such strong opposition as the idea seemed fine to me (before my forum days) - trying to give an incentive to a 'beaten' team to keep going and be rewarded in part for doing so. The home side getting 6 for a win, 5 for a draw or 0 for losing - seems a bit drastic, losing your no 1 through injury may tip the scales in a close meeting

 

How about simply saying point for each 10 points scored up to 40 (both home and away) plus 2 for a win and 1 for a draw (open to the idea that draws and wins might be worth additional points, say 2 and 4). Easy for fans to calculate, encourages teams to keep going once the meeting is lost and does not reward home advantage (a win is a win)

 

Producing the following points

53-37 (home team 6 (4+2), away team 3)

44-46 (home team 4, away team 6 (4+2))

45-45 (home team 5 (4+1), away team 5 (4+1))

 

Obviously this would replace the aggregate point (interesting that the old which bonus point are we discussing came up in the argument) - cant work out quite why some were happy a team could earn a 'bonus' point by losing but reject the idea that a team getting close to drawing a meeting should be rewarded in some way

[barrow boy]

At the risk of again being told that I must get out more or get a girlfriend or something similar, I think it was FlyanRyan who suggested this, I would just like to remind you all that last season just for my own self interest, I kept a league table based on.

4 points for a win by 10+

3 points for a win by less than 10

2 points for a draw

1 point for losing by less than 10

0 points for losing by 10+

 

The result was.

 

1 Reading 99

2 Peterborough 98

3 Swindon 92

4 Belle Vue 90

5 Coventry 86

6 Wolverhampton 84

7 Eastbourne 78

8 Poole 77

9 Ipswich 75

10 Oxford 51

11 Arena Essex 49

 

The end result might not have been different but Belle Vue would have been in the playoffs instead of Coventry as a reward for being involved in closer matches.

[scribbler]

I think that someone on my home forum had the daft/brilliant idea that someone on the losing team nominate someone on the winning team to go off the 15m.

 

Think about it. No double points to worry about ... just the skill of riders. It makes sense to me but I wonder what others think.

 

It's the points thing that most people are against - the above idea wouldn't give the losing team any double points for winning etc.

[AndyM]

I think I'm right in saying that the current heat format results in all riders having one ride from each gate position?  Forgive me if I'm wrong.

 

Although I believe that this is the fairest approach how about allowing teams trailing by say 6 points to alter the gate positions to their own advantage?

 

It could be something as simple as allowing the trailing team to dictate a move from column A to column B gates or the more specific re-positioning of any rider, although odd or even gates would still need to be upheld.

 

Sure it wouldn't have an effect in all meetings but I do feel that it's less open to ridicule than double points.

 

Programmed gate positions seem to have been the norm forever but I'm sure that they were only introduced in the 80's to stop the best riders always getting the best gates.

 

Whilst I agree with that if allowing changing gate positions as a tactic can result in closer matches it might be worth considering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Programmed gate positions are a comparatively recent invention. Traditionally, teams alternated so the team winning the toss had first choice and often selected 1 & 3 in heat one, then had 2 & 4 in heat 2 and so on. Either rider could then select either gate position allocated for their team. When teams were 6 points behind they did have choice of gate positions, though there were suggestions at the time that it should be deregulated further to allow that team to choose, say, 1 and 4 if they so desired.

 

Granted that there is the certainty that top riders will usually bag the best gates if there is any choice in the matter, but I definitely think this is another example of over-regulation and I for one would support freedom for teams at whatever points deficit to select gates... so long as it doesn't complicate matters further - most team managers seem to have difficulty coping with the rules as they now stand!

[Kevin Meynell]

I think that someone on my home forum had the daft/brilliant idea that someone on the losing team nominate someone on the winning team to go off the 15m.

 

It's actually not such a bad idea, but I think anything that doesn't allow substitution of out-of-form riders is doomed to failure. Any system that contrives to give a programmed rider an artificial (dis)advantage still relies on the losing team to have in-form riders programmed in the heat in question. If several team members are struggling, it doesn't really matter what you do.

[Subedei]

It's actually not such a bad idea, but I think anything that doesn't allow substitution of out-of-form riders is doomed to failure. Any system that contrives to give a programmed rider an artificial (dis)advantage still relies on the losing team to have in-form riders programmed in the heat in question. If several team members are struggling, it doesn't really matter what you do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I noticed that SCB was dismissing the new tactical rules in Poland, where they allow the substitution of an in-from rider for an out of form rider for double points from the start line. I see nothing wrong with this at all. We're often told, by, among others, SCB, that speedway is entertainment. Well, in my view, there's more entertainment in watching a rider on form more times in a meeting than having to watch an out of form rider struggle for three mandatory rides.

[scribbler]

I just want anything that disposes with double points and where meetings are won by skill on the track rather than skills in the pits with a calculator.

 

The idea that the losing team is advantaged by one of the winning sides rider starting 15ms behind means that everything is based on skill on the track. Surely the winning team should be the the best team on the day.

[pedropete]

It's actually not such a bad idea, but I think anything that doesn't allow substitution of out-of-form riders is doomed to failure. Any system that contrives to give a programmed rider an artificial (dis)advantage still relies on the losing team to have in-form riders programmed in the heat in question. If several team members are struggling, it doesn't really matter what you do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Riders are in the sport to make money and more importantly not get injured. Who would want to be made to go off 15 mtrs and have to rely on on a lesser rider in front not losing control. Mark Loram paid the penalty for trying to pass Sam Simota on the outside and yes I know it wasn't deliberate but he was totally taken out. Sorry for showing my age but Peter Craven got killed trying to pass a rider after he came off 15 metres.

[SCB]

I noticed that SCB was dismissing the new tactical rules in Poland, where they allow the substitution of an in-from rider for an out of form rider for double points from the start line. I see nothing wrong with this at all. We're often told, by, among others, SCB, that speedway is entertainment. Well, in my view, there's more entertainment in watching a rider on form more times in a meeting than having to watch an out of form rider struggle for three mandatory rides.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course I laughed, the idea of double points is ludicrous, the idea of being able to put your best rider out for double points in a weak heat is even more ludicrous!

 

I'm all for in form riders coming into a heat.

[star ghost]

Pedropete ---- This seems to be an ongoing debate about Peter Craven being off a handicap on that fateful night. It has been pretty well discussed by many people who were there and many who were not tthere. The general outcome of this was that George Hunter made a dream gate and Peter Craven missed it for once. As to be expected Peter Craven tried to pass and I recall that someone said that George Hunter had machine trouble at the fatal moment. The meeting reports of the time do not say any handicap was in operation on the night nor does the match programme for the night say so either.

[norbold]

Riders are in the sport to make money and more importantly not get injured. Who would want to be made to go off 15 mtrs and have to rely on on a lesser rider in front not losing control. Mark Loram paid the penalty for trying to pass Sam Simota on the outside    and yes I know it wasn't deliberate but he was totally taken out.  Sorry for showing my age but Peter Craven got killed trying to pass a rider after he came off 15 metres.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it has been pretty well established that Peter Craven was off scratch that night.