Dave Robinson

[foreverblue]

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.

But in those other soprts the referee has to answer his actions but in speedway it is never questioned,i believe a premier league referee was demoted to championship football matches after a match where he made several mistakes.

[Bryn]

The bottom line is the referee was a joke and should be sacked,incompetence like this makes the sport look ridiculous.

Still i expect he will referee a gp soon no doubt.

 

I've had the pleasure of sitting alongside nigh on all the current British referees and others who no longer officiate 'foreverblue' when announcing at various tracks over the years, and I'm look forward to doing so with those I haven't done as yet, primarily the ones who have qualified this year, in due course.

My experience is that ALL referees, when called upon to adjudicate upon any incident occuring during the course of a meeting do so objectively, honestly and base any decisions they make in terms of how they view any particular incident from what they see from where they are standing / sitting.

Now from the tone of your posts 'foreverblue' you clearly aren't happy with many decisions referees make that go against the side you support and that probably is the case with most fans on the terraces, certainly immediately decisions are made, although on reflection some will honestly admit some such adverse decisions were possibly / probably right.

You advocate sacking of referees so I wonder if you are under the mistaken impression that referees are paid a 'living wage' for their services? THAT I can assure you is NOT the case. I would state with almost total certainty that most, if not all current referees combine their refereeing duties with a full time occupation.

Primarily they, like myself and most of the people who frequent this forum are, first and foremost, devotees of this sport. They decide that they both want to, and importantly have the time to get more involved as it were and thus volunteer to undergo a lengthy period of training, travelling to meetings learning 'the ropes' as it were alongside established referees and eventually undertake testing that they hope will lead to them qualifying to take control of meetings themselves as qualified referees.

ALL refs, even long established ones are independently 'assessed' periodically, as indeed they were last year. Now if your suggestion that those who make decisions that you don't agree with should be sacked, what happens then? Who'd replace them? You perhaps? The SCB as I understand it, are always willing to look at new applications but there's rarely, if ever, a stampede of those.

Referees aren't perfect but there again none of us are - or are we 'foreverblue?'

 

 

[Grachan]

I've had the pleasure of sitting alongside nigh on all the current British referees and others who no longer officiate 'foreverblue' when announcing at various tracks over the years, and I'm look forward to doing so with those I haven't done as yet, primarily the ones who have qualified this year, in due course.

My experience is that ALL referees, when called upon to adjudicate upon any incident occuring during the course of a meeting do so objectively, honestly and base any decisions they make in terms of how they view any particular incident from what they see from where they are standing / sitting.

Now from the tone of your posts 'foreverblue' you clearly aren't happy with many decisions referees make that go against the side you support and that probably is the case with most fans on the terraces, certainly immediately decisions are made, although on reflection some will honestly admit some such adverse decisions were possibly / probably right.

You advocate sacking of referees so I wonder if you are under the mistaken impression that referees are paid a 'living wage' for their services? THAT I can assure you is NOT the case. I would state with almost total certainty that most, if not all current referees combine their refereeing duties with a full time occupation.

Primarily they, like myself and most of the people who frequent this forum are, first and foremost, devotees of this sport. They decide that they both want to, and importantly have the time to get more involved as it were and thus volunteer to undergo a lengthy period of training, travelling to meetings learning 'the ropes' as it were alongside established referees and eventually undertake testing that they hope will lead to them qualifying to take control of meetings themselves as qualified referees.

ALL refs, even long established ones are independently 'assessed' periodically, as indeed they were last year. Now if your suggestion that those who make decisions that you don't agree with should be sacked, what happens then? Who'd replace them? You perhaps? The SCB as I understand it, are always willing to look at new applications but there's rarely, if ever, a stampede of those.

Referees aren't perfect but there again none of us are - or are we 'foreverblue?'

 

Good on 'em. Doesn't make them immune from criticism though - even if some of it is a little obsessive and not always correct. At the end of the day it is a professional sport, whether the referees are professional or not, so it is only right that it is going to attract comment.

 

I do sometimes question the sanity of some people who go on a bit of an "anti-ref" rampage mind you. I bet they've never even ridden a speedway bike.

 

[Fourentee]

I do sometimes question the sanity of some people who go on a bit of an "anti-ref" rampage mind you. I bet they've never even ridden a speedway bike.

 

Good effort, but no takers yet!

[foreverblue]

I've had the pleasure of sitting alongside nigh on all the current British referees and others who no longer officiate 'foreverblue' when announcing at various tracks over the years, and I'm look forward to doing so with those I haven't done as yet, primarily the ones who have qualified this year, in due course.

My experience is that ALL referees, when called upon to adjudicate upon any incident occuring during the course of a meeting do so objectively, honestly and base any decisions they make in terms of how they view any particular incident from what they see from where they are standing / sitting.

Now from the tone of your posts 'foreverblue' you clearly aren't happy with many decisions referees make that go against the side you support and that probably is the case with most fans on the terraces, certainly immediately decisions are made, although on reflection some will honestly admit some such adverse decisions were possibly / probably right.

You advocate sacking of referees so I wonder if you are under the mistaken impression that referees are paid a 'living wage' for their services? THAT I can assure you is NOT the case. I would state with almost total certainty that most, if not all current referees combine their refereeing duties with a full time occupation.

Primarily they, like myself and most of the people who frequent this forum are, first and foremost, devotees of this sport. They decide that they both want to, and importantly have the time to get more involved as it were and thus volunteer to undergo a lengthy period of training, travelling to meetings learning 'the ropes' as it were alongside established referees and eventually undertake testing that they hope will lead to them qualifying to take control of meetings themselves as qualified referees.

ALL refs, even long established ones are independently 'assessed' periodically, as indeed they were last year. Now if your suggestion that those who make decisions that you don't agree with should be sacked, what happens then? Who'd replace them? You perhaps? The SCB as I understand it, are always willing to look at new applications but there's rarely, if ever, a stampede of those.

Referees aren't perfect but there again none of us are - or are we 'foreverblue?'

I didn't say that if a referee made a couple of mistakes they should be sacked and i am not just looking at this from a biased point of view as i have been to many meetings where my team was not involved and the standard of some referees seems to be not as good as it should be.

 

Also it is my understanding that mr Robinson has a history of dubious or blatently wrong decisions and if that is the case then surely his competence must come into question.

 

I understand that it may only be a part time job and they largely do it for the love of the sport but there still has to be an element of accountability and has any referee been stood down after assessment.

[Bryn]

I didn't say that if a referee made a couple of mistakes they should be sacked and i am not just looking at this from a biased point of view as i have been to many meetings where my team was not involved and the standard of some referees seems to be not as good as it should be. *

 

Also it is my understanding that mr Robinson has a history of dubious or blatently wrong decisions and if that is the case then surely his competence must come into question. **

 

I understand that it may only be a part time job and they largely do it for the love of the sport but there still has to be an element of accountability and has any referee been stood down after assessment. ***

 

Fair enough 'foreverblue' BUT:

 

* Can you give us examples for possible discussion?

 

** Your understanding of 'blatently wrong decisions' is based on what evidence? Again have you any examples you can put up for discussion, other than those going against Poole?

 

*** I don't know personally whether any ref has / has not been stood down after assessment - why not try and have a word with any ref adjudicating at a match you attend in future, prior to the action getting underway, and ask him / her? I think you'll find that most, if not all, are approachable but do bear in mind that they have several tasks to undertake pre-,match such as track inspection, checking licences etc etc etc.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Bryn

[iris123]

My experience is that ALL referees, when called upon to adjudicate upon any incident occuring during the course of a meeting do so objectively, honestly and base any decisions they make in terms of how they view any particular incident from what they see from where they are standing / sitting.

Interesting 'Bryn'.How do you come to this absolute conclusion i wonder?Do all the referees speak out load as they sort out in their mind what has just happened or do you ask them after each incident or do they automatically tell you?

[Steve Shovlar]

Not sure Dave Robinson deserves 6 pages for a bad meeting. Every ref has bad meetings. Totally disagreed with his decision on Mrozcka in heat 12 but time to move on.

[wightlink flyer]

Why not just ensure that riders actually line up at the tapes.... not about a foot back... so that if they move, they touch the tape.

 

Think that would that ever work ??

 

[samthepalaceman2]

Not sure Dave Robinson deserves 6 pages for a bad meeting. Every ref has bad meetings. Totally disagreed with his decision on Mrozcka in heat 12 but time to move on.

 

I agree with you entirely, tbf, this could've been discussed in the meeting thread anyway.

[BritPete]

Blatant.

[Fourentee]

Why not just ensure that riders actually line up at the tapes.... not about a foot back... so that if they move, they touch the tape.

 

Think that would that ever work ??

 

Well, we've all seen marshals physically drag wheels to the tapes only for the rider to ease back immediately afterwards. You'd need a referee who was prepared to exclude a rider doing that. Possibly Dave Robinson!

[salty]

I've had the pleasure of sitting alongside nigh on all the current British referees and others who no longer officiate 'foreverblue' when announcing at various tracks over the years, and I'm look forward to doing so with those I haven't done as yet, primarily the ones who have qualified this year, in due course.

My experience is that ALL referees, when called upon to adjudicate upon any incident occuring during the course of a meeting do so objectively, honestly and base any decisions they make in terms of how they view any particular incident from what they see from where they are standing / sitting.

Now from the tone of your posts 'foreverblue' you clearly aren't happy with many decisions referees make that go against the side you support and that probably is the case with most fans on the terraces, certainly immediately decisions are made, although on reflection some will honestly admit some such adverse decisions were possibly / probably right.

You advocate sacking of referees so I wonder if you are under the mistaken impression that referees are paid a 'living wage' for their services? THAT I can assure you is NOT the case. I would state with almost total certainty that most, if not all current referees combine their refereeing duties with a full time occupation.

Primarily they, like myself and most of the people who frequent this forum are, first and foremost, devotees of this sport. They decide that they both want to, and importantly have the time to get more involved as it were and thus volunteer to undergo a lengthy period of training, travelling to meetings learning 'the ropes' as it were alongside established referees and eventually undertake testing that they hope will lead to them qualifying to take control of meetings themselves as qualified referees.

ALL refs, even long established ones are independently 'assessed' periodically, as indeed they were last year. Now if your suggestion that those who make decisions that you don't agree with should be sacked, what happens then? Who'd replace them? You perhaps? The SCB as I understand it, are always willing to look at new applications but there's rarely, if ever, a stampede of those.

Referees aren't perfect but there again none of us are - or are we 'foreverblue?'

Bryn is support of officials - shock, horror!

[Bryn]

Why not just ensure that riders actually line up at the tapes.... not about a foot back... so that if they move, they touch the tape.

 

Think that would that ever work ??

 

Under the rules 'wightlink flyer,' (14.10 to be precise) that initially comes under the start marshal's duties! He/she must ensure, amongst other things, that all riders' front wheels are within 75mm (don't ask me what that is in English!) of the tapes before signalling to the ref that he's happy for the latter to assume control and start the race.

 

Bryn is support of officials - shock, horror!

 

No - merely stating facts / my opinion based on experience 'salty.'

Edited May 6, 2010 by Bryn

[wightlink flyer]

Was meant slightly tounge in cheek Bryn.... hence the googly eyes.

 

I am sure if good ol' "Five laps" said he was happy... but the ref was not, then the green lights would not go on ??

 

See you on the ferry soon.

Edited May 6, 2010 by wightlink flyer

[Bryn]

Was meant slightly tounge in cheek Bryn.... hence the googly eyes.

 

I am sure if good ol' "Five laps" said he was happy... but the ref was not, then the green lights would not go on ??

 

See you on the ferry soon.

 

I wonder if "Five Laps" has any more of an idea than I have (which is none at all! ) of what sort of distance 75mm actually is!

[BWitcher]

I didn't say that if a referee made a couple of mistakes they should be sacked and i am not just looking at this from a biased point of view as i have been to many meetings where my team was not involved and the standard of some referees seems to be not as good as it should be.

 

Also it is my understanding that mr Robinson has a history of dubious or blatently wrong decisions and if that is the case then surely his competence must come into question.

 

I understand that it may only be a part time job and they largely do it for the love of the sport but there still has to be an element of accountability and has any referee been stood down after assessment.

 

Foreverblue..

 

What really seems to be escaping you is that, if you read this thread, you will quite clearly see that on every single one of the referees decisions there is a difference of opinion.

 

Which renders your entire argument invalid.

[Daniel Smith]

I wonder if "Five Laps" has any more of an idea than I have (which is none at all! ) of what sort of distance 75mm actually is!

 

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

[foreverblue]

Foreverblue..

 

What really seems to be escaping you is that, if you read this thread, you will quite clearly see that on every single one of the referees decisions there is a difference of opinion.

 

Which renders your entire argument invalid.

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.

 

 

 

 

[Bryn]

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

 

Ah - now I know! Ta muchly 'screamer'.