Dave Robinson

[Kenboy]

it's this distance Bryn ---------------------------------------------------------

In english money that's 3 inches

[stevehone]

i still think a rider shouldn't get excluded unles he actually touches the tapes ... if riders want to take a chance of anticipating them then thats up to him, as long as he doesn't touch them .. if someone gets a 'flyer' then good for him, and if someone is twitchy at the start and causes someone else to touch them, then thats gamesmanship.

as long as a rider doesn't touch the things, then it might get rid of all this crap about unsatisfactory start

[Ron Butler]

On that basis Mother T, then surely the referees' association could insist on three or four cameras in different positions at ALL meetings to make things fair - and that clearly is not on! Why have one set of parameters to work within for televised matches and another set for others?

 

 

I completely agree with you, Bryn. It would be totally impractical to have two methods of decision making.

 

I feel that referees should not have sight of television monitors during matches. Decisions should be made on the naked eye principal as they are in matches which are not televised.

 

It's ludicrous to have what amounts to having two methods of making crucial decisions. This is illustrated by the fact that this matter has been presented for discussion.

[Ron Butler]

I agree with you as well. I thought the ref made the correct decisions.

 

Artur correctly got thrown out after a warning.

 

Jason tried the Sam Ermolenko cheats trick of staying down at the slightest touch hoping to get a rerun. You did not see Tai doing that in the GP to get a rerun, or Hans last night, fair play to the two of them. Jason rightly excluded for being the cause of the stoppage of the race.

 

If anything the decision to exclude Hougaard was the incorrect one, but justified by Patrick moving out off line. Although i have seen Bjarne do much worse than that at Poole because you have to move out so much to get out the dirt line on the 2nd bend. If that was Nicki P getting excluded he would have been spitting feathers....

 

Whilst agreeing with all else you say, JD, I cannot accept the comment I have highlighted. Surely a decision cannot be both 'incorrect' and yet 'justified'?

 

Are you not contradicting yourself? Perhaps you would clarify that statement.

 

[Max the rebel]

Come on everyone dave is a lovely bloke and personly attacking him will get u all no were

[J_D]

Whilst agreeing with all else you say, JD, I cannot accept the comment I have highlighted. Surely a decision cannot be both 'incorrect' and yet 'justified'?

 

Are you not contradicting yourself? Perhaps you would clarify that statement.

 

No worries, he was justified in being excluded as he moved out off the line to head for the outside dirt line on bend 2 and clipped BP. However PH was slightly in front entering the bend so maybe he was entitled to move out? Again matter for opinion but Bjarne went down way too easily for my liking and make a meal of it. If the incident in the first running had not happened i doubt PH would have been excluded so maybe incorrectly excluded??

[jasper wasp]

to you lot .slagging off dave the ref. get off your ases and have a go reffereing. .you think you know it all. carry on dave .your doing ok.

[BWitcher]

This discussion was not started by me but by several posters who don't all live in the Poole area and all agreed about some very dubious decisions.

 

If there is doubt and the referee has the benefit of looking at replays, why didnt he.Surely it is unprofessional if the technology is there not to use it.If after looking at replays he still comes to the same decision then fair enough but not to at least look at one replay isnt being fair to either team.

 

And exactly what would looking at the replays have achieved?

 

We have all looked at the replays and there are many different opinions for every one of the incidents. Your argument only holds credence when there is a unanimous opinion that the referee got it wrong. Several posters may have agreed about some dubious decisions... several others agreed the decisions were correct. There were no 'glaring' mistakes made in this meeting or there would be a nigh on unanimous castigation of them.

[Ron Butler]

Exactly what we thought about Bjarne! Contrast his gate 4 with Darcy Ward's line from that gate! I reckon start marshalls should make sure riders are pointing straight at the gate not at an angle!

 

I think they usually try do exactly that. Trees, - at least at Belle Vue. From my television observations most of them at other tracks also do.

 

What can the marshall do, however, if a rider insists on positioning his machine at an angle? As far as I'm aware the start marshall has no punitive or executive powers he could apply. Should not the much maligned man in the box warn or penalise the offending rider?

 

[Ron Butler]

Afraid that it isn't the bottom line.

 

Simply reading this thread will see many different points of view on ALL of the incidents.

 

And as for incompetent refereering making a sport look ridiculous... very far fetched comment. Are football, cricket & numerous other sports also ridiculous? They suffer from poor refereeing decisions also.

 

 

I've said elewhere, BWitcher, that I feel the umpires/referees in any sport are continually at the mercy of spectators who ought to have visited Specsavers on their way to the match.

 

I sometimes feel that team managers have quite an easy job in comparison.

 

[Trees]

Should not the much maligned man in the box warn or penalise the offending rider?

One or both should be able to tell a rider to straighten his bike up surely? I think this tactic causes loads of probs in the first turn.

[1stbendbunching]

One or both should be able to tell a rider to straighten his bike up surely? I think this tactic causes loads of probs in the first turn.

 

Why not simply have it that a rider is not allowed to deviate off their line for the first 10/15 metres? (I'm sure this is how is used to be). It would surely cut down on some of the problems we see now.

[doc61]

I've said elewhere, BWitcher, that I feel the umpires/referees in any sport are continually at the mercy of spectators who ought to have visited Specsavers on their way to the match.

 

I sometimes feel that team managers have quite an easy job in comparison.

i once heard it said that football is a game played by 22 players in front of 30,000 referees.

 

this scenario probably applies to speedway as well with different numbers

[Ron Butler]

Blatant.

 

Clarify!

 

 

 

[Ron Butler]

Bryn,

 

Thank you for your post numbered 82.

 

I found it quite an informative insight into the world of the speedway referee in general.

 

Hopefully it will encourage some of our fellow forum contributors to take a more reasonable attitude when commenting in the cold light of day.

 

Regards from a fellow speedway veteran.

 

Ron.

[hyderd]

So in 2011 the bspa put camera's all over the place, the ref looks at all incidents over and over again, so as to make the right decition.

Then I suppose we can all have a moan at the time he takes to make the right decition.

Edited May 8, 2010 by hyderd

[BritPete]

Clarify!

 

 

Just pointing something out to the ones that spelt it blatent!"

[stevehone]

Hopefully it will encourage some of our fellow forum contributors to take a more reasonable attitude when commenting in the cold light of day.

 

do you afford commentators the same courtesy??

 

Another aspect of the commentary which I found particularly annoying was Nigel Pearson's oft repeated phrase 'The lead is with........' Surely he could vary it just a little. I know it's not easy in the heat of the moment but I feel it could be done.

 

He compounded the offence at the end of one heat when the riders were back in the pits. He informed us that 'Second place was with.......'

 

Please could Sky Sports give their speedway commentators technical phrasebooks with several phrases they could use as alternatives. Perhaps the mike men should pass an exam before being let loose on the unsuspecting public?

 

[barrow boy]

Why not simply have it that a rider is not allowed to deviate off their line for the first 10/15 metres? (I'm sure this is how is used to be). It would surely cut down on some of the problems we see now.

Correct. There used to be a small marker post placed on the grass on the infield between the gate and the first turn. Any rider seriously deviating from a straight line before this marker was deemed to be the cause of an unsatisfactory start and the race was usually stopped and rerun with all 4 riders. If however such an offence caused an accident the offending rider was liable to be disqualified and excluded from the rerun irrespective of the option of the so called first bend bunching allowance.

[Daniel Smith]

I like the idea of bringing back the 10/15 metre rule. Maybe having the gating boxes marked out up to the required distance would also help.