Tactical Rider Changes.

[sjw ministerofport]

I have been thinking for some time of a way to move from the tactical rider rule used at present. I know most fans hate it, and after last season it was altered some what. My problem is the double points issue, I think it makes the sport look silly. So I was wondering whether you might offer criticism on my idea as I want to get feed back on it.

 

Each team would have to have a number eight rider at every meeting.

The number eight would not have a programmed race.

If a team was using the rider replacement facility, the number eight would have to take one of the rides.

When any team falls eight points behind, their team manager can ask for either of the other teams scheduled riders in the next heat to be replaced by the number eight. The rider who is replaced would be paid a win points money but the points would not count towards the score. The number eight would race and his points would count towards the total.

The number eight could be used up to three times in a meeting but only replace any named opposition rider once.

[ballinger]

Personally I suspect that the Tactical Ride will remain given it's favouritism with Sky.

 

Personally I would like to see the following range of options available for a team manager

 

- 2x T/R allowed when a team is 11 or more points behind but a second T/R only allowed if the first does not result in a 7-2 or 8-1. A second would be allowed if a 6-3 was scored with the first but the team would have to be 11 points behind once again to use a second T/R

 

- 1x Golden Double when a team is 9 or more points behind, not allowed in Heat 14

 

- 1x Old fashioned T/S when a team is 8 or more points behind, but with the T/S facility not allowed in Heats 8 or 14

 

With these options a maximum 5-1 from a T/S would close the gap to 4, a maximum 8-1 from a G/D would close the gap to 2, and a max 8-1 from a T/R would again close the gap to 4

Edited September 4, 2007 by ballinger

[Grachan]

- 2x T/R allowed when a team is 11 or more points behind but a second T/R only allowed if the first does not result in a 7-2 or 8-1. A second would be allowed if a 6-3 was scored with the first but the team would have to be 11 points behind once again to use a second T/R

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's no logic to that at all. Whether a TR results in 8-1, 7-2 or 6-3 is irrelevant. It's the 6 points obtained from the double points that are the issue, and each scenario still gives a maximum 6 points score.

 

I remember Trevor Swales on saying on Radio Swindon that Swindon messed up their TR because they only got a 6-3 from it. That is so wrong. If you get 6 points from the rider winning the race then you have achieved maximum points and, in the context of the match, the rest is immaterial.

[suzuki star 882]

With respect to anyone else's views, all the tactical rules do is offer the opportunity to reward a team that is performing badly. It only cures the sympton, not the illness. The BSPA need to address the issue of unequal team strengths and track fairness, then the rule would not be necessary. What Sky may or may not want should be irrelevant.

[alan_boon]

What was wrong with the old TS rule? That being, if your team is 6 points or more down you can replace either of your riders in the next race with one of the others. Each rider can only have one TS ride and none of this double points malarkey!

[sjw ministerofport]

For some reason the old rule was done away with but I don't think the new alternatives have been much better.

My idea was to at least take away the double points farce.

I am quite happy to let the match run, even if it's a land slide win one way or another.

By being made to use a number eight, he gets the chance to compete regularly and that can only be good for the rider and team.

[bigcatdiary]

What was wrong with the old TS rule? That being, if your team is 6 points or more down you can replace either of your riders in the next race with one of the others. Each rider can only have one TS ride and none of this double points malarkey!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It cost the promotions money, the TR doesnt and its as simple as that

 

What I would give to go back to the old tac sub ride.

[Kevin Meynell]

The number eight would not have a programmed race.

 

If a team was using the rider replacement facility, the number eight would have to take one of the rides.

 

Surely penalising an already understrength team?

 

When any team falls eight points behind, their team manager can ask for either of the other teams scheduled riders in the next heat to be replaced by the number eight. The rider who is replaced would be paid a win points money but the points would not count towards the score. The number eight would race and his points would count towards the total.

 

Sounds more expensive than simply bringing back tactical subs.

[TonyM]

With respect to anyone else's views, all the tactical rules do is offer the opportunity to reward a team that is performing badly. It only cures the sympton, not the illness. The BSPA need to address the issue of unequal team strengths and track fairness, then the rule would not be necessary. What Sky may or may not want should be irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great post, particularly highlighted bit. With speedway lurching from crisis to crisis the conference this year could do well to use this criteria as to whether to adopt / adapt any rule

[ashman]

heres my plan.

1.heat leaders to race against each other only.

2.reserves to race against each other only.

3.heat 15. top two scorers from reserves and heat leaders take the spoils.

4.and no tacticals allowed

might be good. dont ask me how i can make this plan work. its only my view to spice the racing up a bit and make sure the reserves do get all there rides.

if a number 8 is required by both teams so be it.

now iam goner duck for cover while the bulletts fly.

[father jack]

Why not only allow one old style 'tac sub per ' team per match once they fall ten points down ?

 

Seems simpler .

 

I've always thought that 6 points is to close, we all know riders have thrown races to prevent the trailing team going 6 down. 10 seems about right.

Edited September 5, 2007 by father jack

[Scunny Stag]

For what it's worth I quite like the tactical rules but they are so unpopular we must change something. Something I thought of a couple of weeks ago which would at least throw away the "second scored more than first" argument is if the team that is dropping behind nominates a heat for ALL riders to score double points.

 

I'm sure there are other problems with that but it is the widespread dislike that has to be overcome. I used to hate the away number one taking a very easy win in heat 8 but it was done for so long everyone took it for granted. I do think the current rules create stronger teams rather than a top one or two riders so I think we need to try and keep those benefits.

[k3v1n83]

What was wrong with the old TS rule? That being, if your team is 6 points or more down you can replace either of your riders in the next race with one of the others. Each rider can only have one TS ride and none of this double points malarkey!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ive not read the rest of the thread (yet) but this the question ive always asked. To me it was and always will be the best tactical rule. I always found that provided dissusion between the fans on the terraces, what heat are we going to use this rider, do we use him now or in the next heat etc it was fun.

 

The double points rule make the sport look silly, I overheard a disscusion at a meeting with someone who was brought to his first meeting, he thought it was silly and im going to say its the popular view with many new and old. Although I hate comparing speedway with football etc ive had to when disscusing the subject with non-speedway followers and ive had to discribe to rule as its like if a football team was 3 goals down the team manager can decided if a goal is scored in the next 5 mins then it counts as 2 at maybe giving up a tactiacl sub, to which they said they thought I was mad.

 

Ive had many dissusions with my dad and we find that the current rules dont actually help many teams in most cases. If you have a team thats good enough to keep the score close (ie less than 10 points) they never get the opportunity to use the tactiacl rule but usually cant get a pairing to pull the points back but under the old rules this was possible by being able to replace a stuggling with a better rider. Now on to the meetings where a team runs away with it (say 60-30) and the other team has only 2 or 3 riders that score nearly all the points even if one of those riders gets a full 6 points with a TR and in the end really just adding 3 point to the final score (now 60-33). Under the old rules they would have been able to use the riders that are going well and replace the riders who are not riding as well and even if they only gain 3 more points from what the original programmed rides would expect to have given they would have more importantly taken 3 point off the other team making the meeting closer (hence 57-33).

 

Then there the case when a team is using r/r or a rider has to withdraw during a meeting from injury. Now it may be fine if you have a super reserve especially in the latter case but again as im sure you can work out if your in the losing side and the old tactical sub would be much more beneficial to there cause.

 

So if I had my way the rules would be

 

The old TS rule (when 6 points down any rider can replace any other)

Sort out the averages and inculde bouns points and you get a real average after 3h+3a

Also while im at it i would put the gate positions back to the way they were.

Oh and might as well have the white helmet colour back too.

 

But I cant see it happening to be honest...

[star ghost]

Well k3v1n83 maybe if Sky asked for a goal to count double if scored in the 25 - 30 minute time zone football would go along with it, especially if they paid extra if it was on telly at the time it happened.

 

I think the original T/S rule was o.k

In those days when it started in the 50s a reserve only had two rides so it hit them hard to suddenly meet a number 1 opposition rider but now they get 4 rides like everyone else so they would still have 3 other rides

 

When averages including bonus points come into it a match with one team getting 15 firsts and the away team getting 15 2nds & 3rds the result would be 45 - 45. Averages including bonus points would make one team on 45 and the other on 60. So one team would have to get rid of at least 2 riders to even get down to 45. In reality they would need to get lower to bring anyone in to make 7 riders again.

Edited September 7, 2007 by star ghost

[T.N.T.]

Any team that needs tacticals are cleary struggling. So why do we ask riders to try and score double against riders that are on the night scoring better.

 

Why not instead of asking a rider to score double, a team manager can nominate a rider from the opposing team to start 15 metres behind. This could happen twice, using different riders in different heats.

 

This way a match should end 48-42 or 47-43 or 51-39 not these 52-44 or 55-37.

 

 

It also promotes more passing

Edited September 23, 2007 by T.N.T.