Swc Reserve Riders

[Vintage '69]

During the commentary of the Kings Lynn round I'm fairly certain I heard Middlo say that teams could not replace riders injured during the meeting. If this is the case, then what an utterly absurd rule. Injury could be caused by another rider and therefore a teams chance is scuppered, maybe as early as the first heat.

 

Can anyone confirm if this is indeed the case, and if so why is the rule in place.

 

Confused!

[salty]

Dates back to the Final 3 years ago when the out of touch Greg Walaszek became "injured" and was replaced by Damien Balinski. Caused a stink at the time and since then there have been no reserves.

 

That's how I remember things, but I stand to be corrected.

 

Certainly not an ideal situation as a rider getting injured cannot therefore be replaced.

[SCB]

Dates back to the Final 3 years ago when the out of touch Greg Walaszek became "injured" and was replaced by Damien Balinski. Caused a stink at the time and since then there have been no reserves.

 

That's how I remember things, but I stand to be corrected.

 

Certainly not an ideal situation as a rider getting injured cannot therefore be replaced.

It wasn't just Walasek, didn't 3 teams have "injuries" and bring in the reserve? Personally, I say have a reserve, limit him to 5 rides though. If a team wants to put their number 1 at reserve and use him as and when they see fit, so what, as long as every team can do the same.

[Steve Shovlar]

They should have 6 man teams, with the number 6 being a reseve and able to have a max of 5 rides. He can only be used after every rider has had one ride ( unless a rider is brought off and injured in their first ride and unable to take their place in a rerun)

 

Currently if a rider gets injured in their first ride, the remaining 4 races they are involved in means no representation for that country, which is crazy and rules that country out of the running, probably through no fault of their own.

[fullbore]

Have a reserve that can be swapped in at any time, but the rider replaced can't come back so if a reserve replaces a rider out of form and the team later has an injury then they will have no reserve available.

 

A nice gamble for the team manager.

 

Niamh

[Vintage '69]

Dates back to the Final 3 years ago when the out of touch Greg Walaszek became "injured" and was replaced by Damien Balinski. Caused a stink at the time and since then there have been no reserves.

 

That's how I remember things, but I stand to be corrected.

 

Certainly not an ideal situation as a rider getting injured cannot therefore be replaced.

 

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Sadly I'm not surprised, it seems just another rule change that has been enacted in response to a particular circumstance, with no thought given to the possible consequences.

 

It doesn't take a fool to see the possible injustice. I'd bet a large wedge that if Gollob was injured at Voyens, and, as a result Poland failed to make the rostrum, then we would see another rule change next year.

[HenryW]

Thanks for your response.

 

Sadly I'm not surprised, it seems just another rule change that has been enacted in response to a particular circumstance, with no thought given to the possible consequences.

 

It doesn't take a fool to see the possible injustice. I'd bet a large wedge that if Gollob was injured at Voyens, and, as a result Poland failed to make the rostrum, then we would see another rule change next year.

As SCB said, three teams suffered an "injury" in the Final 3 years ago.

 

Balinski replaced Walasek.

Schlein replaced Holder.

Allen replaced Kennett.

 

I think I am right in saying that 2007 was the only year teams were allowed to bring a reserve in since the tournament was re-branded in 2001.

In all other seasons, an injury meant the same as it does today, that teams were left short handed.

 

Given that 3 of the 4 teams in the Final that year chose to take advantage of the reserve being there, it seems strange that it was dropped.

 

Either Denmark had a lot of say in the matter, or the smaller Nations objected to the expense of taking a 6th man who was unlikely to race.

 

Personally, I think a reserve should be available to use, but the way it was done in 2007 was completely unsatisfactory.

[ladyluck]

It's not, strictly speaking, true, since as soon as you fall six points behind the leading team you can use "tactical changes". So, if a rider is injured, you can replace him with any of the other four riders. Russia did this in 2007 when Sayfutdinov wasn't available for the race-off and they only had four riders. Darkin was named in team, but wasn't there, so as soon as his first ride was out of the way, Russia was six points behind and the other four replaced Darkin in his remaining rides.

[21st century heathen]

In my opinion there should be a named reserve. He can only be used in the event that a rider falls/crashes during the meeting and is declared unfit to continue by the doctor. Tai and Roo both had heavy falls the other day and could easily have been ruled unfit to continue. It would have made a bit of a farce of the meeting had GB and Aus had to continue a rider short.

 

I didn't think a tactical substitute could be used at any time when 6 or more behind the leading team, I thought it was limited. If it's unlimited why haven't the like of Aus used Adams and Crump (or Pol use Gollob/Hampel to replace Walasek rather than Balinski) to replace their weakest rider at every opportunity?

[fullbore]

In my opinion there should be a named reserve. He can only be used in the event that a rider falls/crashes during the meeting and is declared unfit to continue by the doctor.

 

That was the problem, Walasek was declared unfit by the doctor, but given that it was a polish doctor there have been suggestions that it was a very convenient decision to declare someone riding badly unfit.

 

Niamh

[ladyluck]

I didn't think a tactical substitute could be used at any time when 6 or more behind the leading team, I thought it was limited. If it's unlimited why haven't the like of Aus used Adams and Crump (or Pol use Gollob/Hampel to replace Walasek rather than Balinski) to replace their weakest rider at every opportunity?

 

They may not have been in a position to do so. For example, they may fall six points adrift when one of their "big guns" is already scheduled in the race, whereupon it is likely he will take a "Joker" ride, although for preference that is best taken while riding as a Tactical Substitute. However, if you look back to the 2006 race-off you will find that both Gollob and Hampel (maybe Ulamek too) took extra rides for the Poles at Reading. Be assured, if you are six points behind the leading team you can use Tactical Substitutes.

[HenryW]

That was the problem, Walasek was declared unfit by the doctor, but given that it was a polish doctor there have been suggestions that it was a very convenient decision to declare someone riding badly unfit.

And presumably the same doctor who ruled Holder and Kennett unfit as well when their team needed it...so it's not like he was just helping the Poles.

[Diesel]

In my opinion there should be a named reserve. He can only be used in the event that a rider falls/crashes during the meeting and is declared unfit to continue by the doctor.

It isn't difficult to swing that though, "Oh, I hit my head, I've got blurred vision." What doctor is going to say the rider is fit to continue?

Edited July 30, 2010 by Diesel

[fullbore]

And presumably the same doctor who ruled Holder and Kennett unfit as well when their team needed it...so it's not like he was just helping the Poles.

 

Which is why a rule allowing 1 substitution only would be better, the manager can pull a rider having an off day without needing the help of a doctor, but by doing so he runs the risk of not having a substitute available in the event of injury later.

 

It's the managers call and eliminates any suggestion of subterfuge.

 

Niamh