spook Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 (edited) Can someone please tell me why Andersen got the 8th semi place though please? ............ obviously we had six riders on 6 points but two of those could be discounted as they didnt get a win (bye bye scotty ) so we were left with Rune Holta, Hans Andersen, Jarek Hampel and Seb Ulamek who all had a win, a second, a third and two lasts so then we have who beat who (unless I have missed a rule change): Hampel beat Holta and Andersen but lost to Ulamek = beat 2 and lost to 1 Holta beat Andersen and Ulamek but lost to Hampel = beat 2 and lost to 1 Andersen beat Ulamek but lost to Hampel and Holta = beat 1 and lost to 2 Ulamek beat Hampel but lost to Andersen and Holta = beat 1 and lost to 2 by my reckoning Hampel and Holta should have made it ahead of Andersen ........... and Hampel should have got the place due to him beating Holta The only way I can imagine they did it was on the basis that Andersen scored more points than any of them in the last GP which if true makes it farcical (and i'm sure Ulamek would have something to say about that too) Edited May 12, 2007 by spook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 Perhaps Andersen made it because Ole likes him better? The rules seem pretty arbitrary anyway so your guess is as good as mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witches Vs Hammers Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 Hampel had two falls, Holta rode the fence ( ) and fell and Hans beat Seba. A fall is classed as below a last place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZKZ Kitten Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 Hans was ahead of Hampel coz coming last with 0 points is better than to fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 In which case, shouldn't a fall be awarded minus one point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 Hans was ahead of Hampel coz coming last with 0 points is better than to fall. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I take it that was a sarcastic post Ewa? Surely a zero is a zero no matter how it was achieved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witches Vs Hammers Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 We had this same discussion a few years ago. Thats why I posted the same as Ewa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart road Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 i was monitoring stan james odds and after 20 heats their odds listed hampel,not andersen,so obviously they were confused as well(as was hans who was packing up) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
full-throttle Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 i'm sure i read somewhere that when there is a tie on points, race wins count, if that is the same then the highest ranking rider progresses same as with chris harris 4th equal on points with leigh and hans but due to world ranking only classified as 6th in the standings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 i'm sure i read somewhere that when there is a tie on points, race wins count, if that is the same then the highest ranking rider progresses same as with chris harris 4th equal on points with leigh and hans but due to world ranking only classified as 6th in the standings <{POST_SNAPBACK}> but that isnt the same is it? that is overall points and something that doesnt matter at all until following the last GP of the season. This is something which matters a lot as was demonstrated with Hans 7 extra points ................ My understanding of the rules is that it is done by countback on wins, 2nds, 3rds and lasts............. then by who beat who If they have started to do it by GP ranking from the previous season then what is the point of having wildcards? They should either start off equal or not be included at all imo It also seems to me that it would be a great advantage over a season considering how many times ties happen in these circumstances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witches Vs Hammers Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 That is exactly the way its done but a fall, ef or exclusion is deemed as being worse than a last place as they did not finish the race. Therefore meaning Hampel was going to be 3rd between Hans, Seba and him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 (edited) Taken from FIM rules for the Speedway GP world championship http://www.fim.ch/EN/rules/Sportifs/ccpGP/2007/077_en.pdf page 24 0.77.9.2 Ties After the completion of heat 20, 21 or 22 When establishing the order between the riders in the list of intermediate classification at the conclusion of heat 20, or following the completion of the semi final heats 21 and 22, any ties will be solved as follows: a) Precedence will be given to the riders (tied on race points) having the most number of 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th placings (a '0' for last placing is better than being disqualified for whatever reason) If the tie still persists and involves only 2 riders, precedence will be given to the better placed rider in the heat or heats where the 2 riders met. c) If the tie still persists and involves more than 2 riders, it shall be checked whether there is a possibility to determine a proper precedence (eg 3 riders tied on points: A, B, C: rider A has beaten rider B rider A has beaten rider C rider B has beaten rider C Then the precedence will be: best position for rider A, then rider B and then rider C. D) If solutions a), and c) cannot resolve the tie then the lowest riding number jacket will be deemed the better placed rider. so well done witches vs hammers and Ewa........... although imo the rule is a bit of a joke as a zero is a zero also spotted this which is a bit alarming: Page 24 In the case of a dead heat, the lowest riding number jacket will be the better placed rider. Edited May 12, 2007 by spook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerblues Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 Taken from FIM rules for the Speedway GP world championship http://www.fim.ch/EN/rules/Sportifs/ccpGP/2007/077_en.pdf also spotted this which is a bit alarming: Page 24 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds erm, logical As for the other rule, surely a 0 should be a 0 whether you come last, fall, engine failure etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart road Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 Sounds erm, logical As for the other rule, surely a 0 should be a 0 whether you come last, fall, engine failure etc. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so the man winning by the proverbial country mile,who gets an e/f and comes last,is considered worse than the man tailed off at the back. ok! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st century heathen Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 I don't agree that a zero is a zero. If you finish the four laps, but are last, that is quite rightly considered a better result than not finishing the race. I'd even say that a fall or engine failure should be considered a better result than not taking to the track/being excluded under the 2 min rule/being excluded for touching the tapes. If you are excluded for an in-race offence then that would fit in between these two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 I don't agree that a zero is a zero. If you finish the four laps, but are last, that is quite rightly considered a better result than not finishing the race. I'd even say that a fall or engine failure should be considered a better result than not taking to the track/being excluded under the 2 min rule/being excluded for touching the tapes. If you are excluded for an in-race offence then that would fit in between these two. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so for instance if Andreas jonsson and antonio lindback had been tieing for points to get into the semi tonight (impossible I know as one was CL standard and the other has a broken wrist)....... you would be backing the guy who was woefully tailed off at the back and easy meat no matter what gate he was on........rather than the guy who was excluded while trying hard to pass someone? I don't see how this rule can be included ........and I also think the number on the back of the jacket rule is a complete joke too but I won't begrudge Hans his qualification to the semi as there was a race where he completely blew one bend and could easily have given up and pulled off the track....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st century heathen Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 You give a very poor example. Had they been tied on points then either AJ would have been shocking, or Lindback much better. You can't try to apply the rule to riders that have had such different nights. The whole point of any count back system is to split riders that have finished on level points. If two riders were to finish level on 7 points and were tied for the last semi spot they would have to be split somehow. If one rider had failed to finish a race because of a fall (for eg), and the other had completed all his rides my rule would make sense. The rider that had fallen had made a crucial error that the other hadn't. That should count against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2007 you ignore my point what you are saying is that just because a guy pootled around at the back, his zero is worth more than the guy who fell while trying to gain or defend points i'm saying that of course this is a nonsense and that all 'zero's should be treated equally and there is the argument here that they dont actually 'have' to split anything.....especially when it gets to the ridiculous state of 'grading' zero's and giving priority to those who did better last season...................what happened to run offs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkie Posted May 13, 2007 Report Share Posted May 13, 2007 (edited) I don't agree that a zero is a zero. If you finish the four laps, but are last, that is quite rightly considered a better result than not finishing the race. I'd even say that a fall or engine failure should be considered a better result than not taking to the track/being excluded under the 2 min rule/being excluded for touching the tapes. If you are excluded for an in-race offence then that would fit in between these two. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Having just spent a weekend with the 9 FIM rule books etc in front of me, I have to agree with you 21st Century Heathen. Edited May 13, 2007 by Clarkie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted May 13, 2007 Report Share Posted May 13, 2007 Winning race times perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.