Guest chicken george Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 So grahan do you think it's a good idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Yeah, pretty good decision in my book. Good on 'em I say. Gawd bless 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer X Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Yeah, pretty good decision in my book. Good on 'em I say. Gawd bless 'em. Pleased to count you amonst the opponents of this rule Grachan, we may not (and certainly will not!) agree on everything but I respect your opinion and yours is one I would have looked for in voicing opposition to this. I wonder whether the supporters of the golden mess up will take any notice of the NINE TO ONE opposition to the rule, or whether they will continue to claim that support is growing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted November 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Racer X – You have made your point now let everyone else make theres in peace! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupus Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 I've let the dust settle before offering my opinion so here goes.... I really think RacerX is a bit out of order with some of the things he has said to rabbit and others. I can't see anything in Rabbit and Lanzilla's post's that say they're in favour of the new rule - just that they'll wait until they've experienced it before passing judgement. I have to say, I agree with this - it's nothing to do with EL fans being superior or whatever - just that some people refuse to be 'sheep' and slag off something they have no experience of. I call it the 'Sun Reader Syndrome' - ie "I have to moan about something because the 'majority' tell me to!!!" RacerX - I think you should get the doc to check that chip on your shoulder - you really will be getting a stiff neck with the size of it!!!! I understand that PL fans HAVE experienced the rule and, in general, didn't really like it but they need to be having a go at their promoters in that case, not other fans. After all, it wasn't the 'EL fans' who were in Tenerife voting on these rules!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzybird Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 (edited) god forbid..royals running round our centre greens!! Hmmmmm well there are a few Queens out there I'd have to vote no on this subject, I can't see how you can win a meeting from a Golden Joker, if the team had rode better to start with there would be no need for them to have to do this in the first place. Edited November 21, 2003 by shazzybird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Seeing as the BSPA are going down the 'It's a Knockout' route. Surely a better idea is this; when a team is eight points behind they can bring out onto the track obsticles for the winning team to ride around. You know buckets of crazy foam, custard pies etc. If the team falls futher behind they can bring out onto the track a man dressed up in an enomous suit, an Eagle or Pirate for example and try to knock the rider off with a foam mallet. I need a lie down, it's getting to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyM Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Well finally got to the end of the thread and at present the pros are way behind but perhaps there is a silent majority out there (perhaps not ) I am in favour of dropping tac subs and have no real problem with the golden doubles as the rider still needs to score points in a programmed ride which has to be better than placing a heat leader in a totally mismatched heat against a second string and a reserve Agree with Star Fever (for once) that the rules helped to provide two exiting meetings between Lynn and Sheffield keeping both alive till the end Just one point Phil (sorry havent worked out how to copy yet) - yes it would encourage the team mate to slow down but what the hell are the opposition riders doing letting this happen this may well provide for some great tactical racing rather than the pin your ears back stuff that so dominates modern speedway. Just the thought that it might encourage some riders to realise that speedway is a team sport and not a first past the post heat is enough for me to support it for at least a season or two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 What an appalling new rule. We, as spectators, will be the ones who suffer. At Exeter for instance there are loads of teams with riders who are hopeless, and riders who are excellent. Now next year we'll have to put up with 4 rides from Mark Courtney, who doesn't even bother to ride, and won't be able to enjoy an extra appearance from Nigel Sadler, who is excellent. In one sided meetings we look forward to the opposition top riders being out on track, we don't really care how the opposition No. 7 is developing. That's not what we pay our money to see. I reckon this is a pathetic new rule, at least send them back 15 meters, but no, it'll be just the same, but they'll score double for doing nothing extra. Bring back the tac subs, quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sloop Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 (edited) Well, I voted "no" fairly early but I don't think I appreciate being labelled a sheep, or even worse, a Sun reader, because of this I've now read all the opinions posted here and can see why some may be in favour of the GJs, although I'm still in the "no" corner. One thing does puzle me though. It has been said that all riders must now take 4 rides. Since they are all programmed to take 4 rides, if one misses out because of the GDTS, say in heat 14, does that rider then have to go in heat 15 ? Of course, he may not be eligible to go in heat 15. So the GDTS would, more often than not, be of no use in heat 14. Even if a rider was replaced by a GDTS earlier in the meeting, he would still have to take an extra ride to make up his 4 rides (anyone still awake ? ) Edited November 21, 2003 by Sloop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazysue Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 I'm awake....but very,very confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sloop Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 I'm awake....but very,very confused Me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupus Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 (edited) Well, I voted "no" fairly early but I don't think I appreciate being labelled a sheep, or even worse, a Sun reader, because of this I've now read all the opinions posted here and can see why some may be in favour of the GJs, although I'm still in the "no" corner. My comment wasn't particulaly aimed at those with good arguements against the new rule but there have been an awful lot of 'this is crap' comments with no substance. I was also annoyed at RacerX's holier than thou attitude...his comments were completely unwarrented and stepped over the mark!!! You and others may well be right about the new rule Sloop...(I just get annoyed when people jump on a bandwagon just so they can have a moan or slag someone off)... As rabbit said, I'll be one of the first to say it if you're proved right but until now the EL fans haven't experienced the new rule so are probably more willing to try it out next season. I DO however, think Nigel Pearson's 'positive' slant is laughable - who the hell does he think he's kidding?!!! Mind you, this is the guy who writes a whole match report for the local paper by just using the scorers from the BSPA site because he's been doing the commentary on SKY from another match 200 miles away!!! You couldn't make it up........ Edited November 21, 2003 by lupus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 One thing does puzle me though. It has been said that all riders must now take 4 rides. Since they are all programmed to take 4 rides, if one misses out because of the GDTS, say in heat 14, does that rider then have to go in heat 15 ? Of course, he may not be eligible to go in heat 15. So the GDTS would, more often than not, be of no use in heat 14. I promised myself I would not comment on the rules any more but here goes! What has been said is that by using GD (not GDTS) that all rider woudl have 4 (or 5) rides but obviously there will be instances where rider have 3 (and obviously 6) rides but these should not be veyr often as manager don't like paying for the GDTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Custom House Kid Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 until now the EL fans haven't experienced the new rule so are probably more willing to try it out next season. Perhaps the PL fans may see some of the pitfalls then! As I posted previously, as a born again supporter the rules today do not encourage a new supporter as they are too confusing ! Also this is my first season watching speedway since 1971 and I have chosen to go to my local track ! I do not for the life of me get this us and them thing between leagues ! good speedway is good wherever you ride! Lets look at this as our sport not our league! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sloop Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 Well, I voted "no" fairly early but I don't think I appreciate being labelled a sheep, or even worse, a Sun reader, because of this I've now read all the opinions posted here and can see why some may be in favour of the GJs, although I'm still in the "no" corner. My comment wasn't particulaly aimed at those with good arguements against the new rule but there have been an awful lot of 'this is crap' comments with no substance. Yes, I know, Lupus. Hence the wee smiley thing I do agree with you. Some of us, maybe myself included, are a bit too resistant to change and too ready to criticise without thinking things through. And thanks SCB. I now understand that it is still possible for a rider to have only 3 rides if replaced by a GDTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 (edited) There are some issues with the new rules that are worthy of perhaps a little more consideration. Firstly - scrapping tactical substitutes: introduced in an attempt to keep the scores close because that is seen to be the essence of an exciting meeting (not always the case). I have seen matches during which the use of two or three TS rides has resulted in a side coming back from the dead to win a match where, without them, they had very little chance. Exciting? maybe; Fair? certainly not! Advantageous to teams with a strong top end? certainly. Acceptable? yes but more by familiarity than a sense of fair play. Necessary? not really with aggregate bonus points at stake. Secondly - double-pointing: fairer than tactical subs because only two can be used during the meeting and no longer allows teams to replace second strings and reserves. This means that the scoring of the second strings and reserves is more important than before thus surely encouraging teams to build more solidly than in the past. To some extent compensates for the scrapping of tactical substitutes. Thirdly - golden double tactical substitute: a piece of utter nonsense. There were a number of occasions last year where its complete unfairness was exposed. For example in the Isle of Wight v. Arena Essex match at the end of last season Isle of Wight had a faller in heat 14 and an engine failure in the rerun gifting an 8-0 to Arena Essex who then took the final heat 5-1 to win a match they scarcely deserved to. The earlier efforts of the lower order in the Isle of Wight team to build up a good lead counted for nothing. In the Arena Essex v. Edinburgh match, Edinburgh had built up an 8 point lead after heat 13 only to lose Heat 14 8-1. They won the match but it would only have taken an engine failure in the final heat for them to have lost. How unfair would that have been given the efforts of the whole team to build up the lead in the first place? Had Arena Essex won the match there would have been no honour in victory - or does nobody bother about that these days? (the fact that Arena Essex were involved in both these matches is purely coincidental). Scrap the tactical substitutes by all means and replace them with double-pointing (although it smacks of 'It's a Knockout') and let's see how it works out. But, please, don't add the golden double into the mix. The two combined makes the sport look utterly ridiculous. Edited November 22, 2003 by Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Custom House Kid Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 There are some issues with the new rules that are worthy of perhaps a little more consideration. Firstly - scrapping tactical substitutes: introduced in an attempt to keep the scores close because that is seen to be the essence of an exciting meeting (not always the case). I have seen matches during which the use of two or three TS rides has resulted in a side coming back from the dead to win a match where, without them, they had very little chance. Exciting? maybe; Fair? certainly not! Advantageous to teams with a strong top end? certainly. Acceptable? yes but more by familiarity than a sense of fair play. Necessary? not really with aggregate bonus points at stake. Secondly - double-pointing: fairer than tactical subs because only two can be used during the meeting and no longer allows teams to replace second strings and reserves. This means that the scoring of the second strings and reserves is more important than before thus surely encouraging teams to build more solidly than in the past. To some extent compensates for the scrapping of tactical substitutes. Thirdly - golden double tactical substitute: a piece of utter nonsense. There were a number of occasions last year where its complete unfairness was exposed. For example in the Isle of Wight v. Arena Essex match at the end of last season Isle of Wight had a faller in heat 14 and an engine failure in the rerun gifting an 8-1 to Arena Essex who then took the final heat 5-1 to win a match they scarcely deserved to. The earlier efforts of the lower order in the Isle of Wight team to build up a good lead counted for nothing. In the Arena Essex v. Edinburgh match, Edinburgh had built up an 8 point lead after heat 13 only to lose Heat 14 8-1. They won the match but it would only have taken an engine failure in the final heat for them to have lost. How unfair would that have been given the efforts of the whole team to build up the lead in the first place? Had Arena Essex won the match there would have been no honour in victory - or does nobody bother about that these days? (the fact that Arena Essex were involved in both these matches is purely coincidental). Scrap the tactical substitutes by all means and replace them with double-pointing (although it smacks of 'It's a Knockout') and let's see how it works out. But, please, don't add the golden double into the mix. The two combined makes the sport look utterly ridiculous. It was a 8:0 at IOW by the way! and yes i dont think its fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 It was a 8:0 at IOW by the way! Thanks - you're quite correct. I've edited the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Custom House Kid Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 In the Arena Essex v. Edinburgh match, Edinburgh had built up an 8 point lead after heat 13 only to lose Heat 14 8-1. They won the match but it would only have taken an engine failure in the final heat for them to have lost. How unfair would that have been given the efforts of the whole team to build up the lead in the first place? Had Arena Essex won the match there would have been no honour in victory - or does nobody bother about that these days? (the fact that Arena Essex were involved in both these matches is purely coincidental). I stood with ML and Pammie that night, and I must say it made it quite exciting! We all predicted to move about 2 races earlier which added to the excitement and kept Pammie quite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts