Dave Robinson

[Fourentee]

I doubt that........................very much.......................I have to admit that I disagreed with some of the decisions made...................but some were right but in the case of Hougaard/Doyle.............Hougaard should have gone meaning that a second re run was not necessary....................

 

But then again is any referee spot on every time??????????? I think not......................

 

RP

 

The one you're looking for is on the bottom row, between the m and the full stop.

[Leicester Lion]

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.

It's also the over the top notion that when someone makes a mistake they should be sacked from their job. For the record, I think the first decision should have been all 4, the second was also wrong (Pedersen should have been out), and Mroczka's exclusion was correct.

[Blazeaway]

The one you're looking for is on the bottom row, between the m and the full stop.

 

Surely the off button would be a better bet?

[Old Saint]

On other threads someone usually comes in with the fatuous question "Have you ever ridden a speedway bike?" which is intended as a fait accompli however, I think that on this subject such a comment (suitably modified) is justified. How many of the critics, including Kelvin Tatum and Nigel Pearson, have tried to referee a meeting?

 

It is easy to sit and watch a meeting and be the best referee the world have ever seen but it must be incredibly difficult when actually sitting where the referee is. Yes, on this occasion there were Sky cameras but even that is not foolproof and ultimately any decision has to be a matter of judgement. Sadly for all referees, no matter what sport, it is a thankless task and always open to comment from those who believe they know better.

 

I neither endorse any of the decisions made nor criticise them but am merely trying to point out that the referee has to make a decision in the full knowledge that there will a large number who disagree whatever that decision may be. Oh yes, I too am guilty of questioning decisions but am prepared to acknowledge how difficult the job is.

[doc61]

i think reffing is a very difficult job as you cant please everyone. just look at how many differing opinions we have on here on the various incidents from last night. even team managers[ex riders] had differing opinions.

 

if the technology is available then any sensible ref would use it, obviously where it is not he has to use his judgement.

 

one decision that should stand out for the rest of the season though is that any incident involving a poole rider automatically means the exclusion of that poole rider. no argument. we might just get a closer league.

[LisaColette]

It's also the over the top notion that when someone makes a mistake they should be sacked from their job. For the record, I think the first decision should have been all 4, the second was also wrong (Pedersen should have been out), and Mroczka's exclusion was correct.

Only if he moved the second time, having watched the replay don't think he did.

Edited May 4, 2010 by lisa-colette

[Trees]

Only if he moved the second time, having watched the replay don't think he did.

He did slightly though, I guess that's the deal after receiving a warning.

[oakdalepirate]

Any movement Artur made was barely noticable. Certainly shouldn't have been excluded, on a warning or not.

[Fourentee]

So how far should he move, when already on a warning, before the referee excludes him?

[Trees]

So how far should he move, when already on a warning, before the referee excludes him?

Erm, not at all ................

[Old Saint]

May one ask if it is pure coincidence that the most vociferous posters on this thread seem to be Poole supporters?

[LisaColette]

He did slightly though, I guess that's the deal after receiving a warning.

Must have been ever so slightly and its not like he looked at the replay before making the decision. If you're right and it was slightly its very harsh as its not like he got any advantage out of them. In the first one when he got warned for moving, the guy on 3 made a much better gate so defintely didn't gain any advantage out of that one either.

Edited May 4, 2010 by lisa-colette

[TonyE]

Must have been ever so slightly and its not like he looked at the replay before making the decision. If you're right and it was slightly its very harsh as its not like he got any advantage out of them. In the first one when he got warned for moving, the guy on 3 made a much better gate so defintely didn't gain any advantage out of that one either.

 

Agreed - it was harsh but in accordance with the regulations. What the other riders did at the start is not relevant to Arturs' exclusion and nor is the fact that he appeared to gain no immediate advantage.

 

The biggest problem for any referee (assuming they are technically competent), and I know from personal experience, is maintaining consistency.

Edited May 5, 2010 by TonyE

[speedy den boy]

Good old Artur is at it again in sweden tonight being ex in his first ride for..............!! but this time he touched them!!!

[rabbit]

May one ask if it is pure coincidence that the most vociferous posters on this thread seem to be Poole supporters?

 

I guess we're possibly those with most interest in the decisions...

 

FWIW, I've just watched the meeting again after being there last night. My thoughts on the various decisions were:

 

Doyle's exclusion - a candidate for all 4 back - certainly contact but no big deal. No intent, but it was obvious an exclusion would occur after the race was allowed to continue.

 

Hougaard's exclusion. Possibly Bjarne did slide off easily, but I thought personally there was more case in this one than for Jason's exclusion. Maybe not from contact but from the angles. Also the ref may have been swayed that it was the second time Hougaard was involved.

 

Artur's first warning - no problem.He moved. easy call, although he mucked himself up so other refs may have allowed it to continue. Can't fault the decision though.

 

Artur's exclusion. I've watched and re-watched this. He barely twitched, and certainly wasn't moving forwards or backwards - when the tapes did go up, he was at the back. Very harsh decision and certainly not consistent with the amount of movement made by other riders.

 

This ref has form amongst riders so his reputation certainly precedes him. I'd give beenfit of the doubt on a couple of the decisions, but not all.

 

Edited for shonky spelling.

Edited May 4, 2010 by rabbit

[Gemini]

Edited for shonky spelling.

 

Love it.

[austrian hammer]

On other threads someone usually comes in with the fatuous question "Have you ever ridden a speedway bike?" which is intended as a fait accompli however, I think that on this subject such a comment (suitably modified) is justified. How many of the critics, including Kelvin Tatum and Nigel Pearson, have tried to referee a meeting?

 

It is easy to sit and watch a meeting and be the best referee the world have ever seen but it must be incredibly difficult when actually sitting where the referee is. Yes, on this occasion there were Sky cameras but even that is not foolproof and ultimately any decision has to be a matter of judgement. Sadly for all referees, no matter what sport, it is a thankless task and always open to comment from those who believe they know better.

 

I neither endorse any of the decisions made nor criticise them but am merely trying to point out that the referee has to make a decision in the full knowledge that there will a large number who disagree whatever that decision may be. Oh yes, I too am guilty of questioning decisions but am prepared to acknowledge how difficult the job is.

 

 

Agree totally with these points. Excellent post.

[lionheart]

one decision that should stand out for the rest of the season though is that any incident involving a poole rider automatically means the exclusion of that poole rider. no argument. we might just get a closer league.

 

 

Now THERE'S a novel way of ensuring closer matches

[foreverblue]

It's also the over the top notion that when someone makes a mistake they should be sacked from their job. For the record, I think the first decision should have been all 4, the second was also wrong (Pedersen should have been out), and Mroczka's exclusion was correct.

No its not an over the top notion as its not the first time,if i did a bad job over and over again i would expect to be sacked.

[Fourentee]

Any movement Artur made was barely noticable.

 

Must have been ever so slightly

 

Artur's exclusion. I've watched and re-watched this. He barely twitched,

 

I must, in fairness, commend the honesty of these Poole supporters who all agree that Mroczka moved a second time before exclusion. Well done.