Deadline For Nl Fixtures

[21st century heathen]

I suspect the highlighted potential position changes after the deadline this season will lead to re-think on the deadline for next season. There really is no need for it to be so early.

[lucifer sam]

And that is, of course, true, Rob.

Even though I throw my lot in with the Buccs these days, I think it is utterly wrong that the play-off deadline wasn't extended.

Ironically that final match is against Plymouth and the right result for the Devils would lift THEM (rather than the Cobras) into 4th.

All in all it's a match which would be decisive and the league's been denied it...

 

But note that the first play-off matches won't be until October even though the authorities decided to stick with the 12/9 deadline...!!

 

Whoops, yep Plymouth can make it as well. In fact, it requires a narrow home win for Rye House or a draw between Rye & Plymouth, for the Buccs to retain 4th. Either a win for Rye by 7 points or more, or any kind of win for Plymouth, and it's rather embarrassing for the NL.

 

All the best

Rob

Edited September 20, 2010 by lucifer sam

[stressed]

Hmm, I said all along that a 'Grade 1' (I know they're not called this any more! ) would need to come in as part of the 'package' to get Jay back in..: it was clear to me that this would be what Garry would do... Several on here dismissed the 'legality' of this too.

I have to say I'm rather baffled by the Richie Worrall situation..: is he eligible or not..? If the latter how come he did ride yesterday..?!

 

Strange as it looks like Jayne pointed this out in the first place and I then posted the averages

 

As regards the Richie Worrall situation this is part of your clubs press release which I guess you haven't read as yet Still strange that a guest can cover for a rider who hasn't ridden for a club

The Buccaneers have had to re-declare their side yet again after it became apparent that Scunthorpe were unwilling for the defending champions to name Ritchie Worrall in their new one to seven and so the Buccaneers have gone for Nick Laurence. However, in a bizarre twist Laurence is unavailable for Sunday and so Ritchie Worrall will cover under the NDL number 8 guest ruling.

Edited September 20, 2010 by stressed

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

 

As regards the Richie Worrall situation this is part of your clubs press release which I guess you haven't read as yet Still strange that a guest can cover for a rider who hasn't ridden for a club

The Buccaneers have had to re-declare their side yet again after it became apparent that Scunthorpe were unwilling for the defending champions to name Ritchie Worrall in their new one to seven and so the Buccaneers have gone for Nick Laurence. However, in a bizarre twist Laurence is unavailable for Sunday and so Ritchie Worrall will cover under the NDL number 8 guest ruling.

 

No, I DID read the Press Release...: it doesn't mean though that I can grasp the sheer illogicality of this latest twist!!!!

[21st century heathen]

Still strange that a guest can cover for a rider who hasn't ridden for a club.

 

You can't have a facility for a rider that is yet to ride for the club.

 

18.1.4.2. No facility is permitted to replace a Rider, who although (re-)declared has not made an appearance for that Team since being (re)-declared.

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

You can't have a facility for a rider that is yet to ride for the club.

 

18.1.4.2. No facility is permitted to replace a Rider, who although (re-)declared has not made an appearance for that Team since being (re)-declared.

 

But what does a "facility" mean in any case..?

 

R/R...? Well, yes I'm sure R/R does come under this definition.

 

As would a 'Guest', but isn't it the case that in the NL you can only have a proper 'Guest' for your number one..?

 

Surely the times (actually all of the last three Buccs' matches) that Richie Worrall has appeared isn't formally as a guest... Same as Lewis Kerr stepping in for the injured James Brundle and a similar set up for Rye in the second match on Sunday, borrowing a rider from KL aren't 'guest' arrangements...?

 

Though I'm not actually sure how they are defined..?

[21st century heathen]

I'll hold my hands up straight away to not knowing exactly who's ridden where and for which club etc. I was just showing the rule. In addition I should have added the following:

 

18.1.5.1 If no facility is applicable then provided it conforms additionally to SR 18.3;

a) In the EL, that Teams #8, or a PL Rider with a PL CMA of 6.00 or less.

b ) In the PL, a NL Rider as defined in SR 18.1.3 #5

c) In the NL any Rider with a NL CMA of 3.00 or less and must ride at #6 or #7 only.

 

But there is a slight question mark over that too. The first line indicates that you can only have 3 pointer (as per 18.1.5.1 c) if 18.3 is satisfied. But this implies a contradiction to the above.

 

 

18.3 A Guest Rider is one whom replaces a regular Team Member for the whole Meeting and is permitted only subject to the following:

* Must be in a current Team Declaration

* The Guest's CMA is the same or lower (see SR 18.3.1) than the Replaced Rider

* A Guest or #8 assumes the position and CMA of the Replaced Rider.

* A Guest Rider in a "double-header" shall count as one Meeting only.

* No Rider who has appeared, or will appear at the Track on which the Meeting is being held within 180 hours before or after the fixture shall ride as a Guest Rider; unless that was a non-official Competition, an FIM or British Championship, a BSPA Shared Event, a NL Meeting held on either a EL or PL Track, is the 2nd part of a Double-Header Meeting nor if the Guest Rider is either replacing the Home Teams #1 Rider or is a NL Rider being a Guest for Home Team.

 

It seems that the NL rule 18.1.5.1 c was forgotten when writing this. In the EL and PL a replacement rider where no facility is allowed must ride in the team position of the rider he replaces. So for example if Lindgren was missing for Wolves but no facility was allowed then the replacement rider would have to ride at number 1 regardless of the fact that his average may be one of the two lowest in the team. However, in the NL the rules clearly state that the replacement rider must ride at 6 or 7. Therefore if 18.3 is not satisfied and the replacement rider does not ride in the position of the rider he is replacing then 18.1.5.1 c is void... I think!!

[Edwardian]

I'll hold my hands up straight away to not knowing exactly who's ridden where and for which club etc. I was just showing the rule. In addition I should have added the following:

 

18.1.5.1 If no facility is applicable then provided it conforms additionally to SR 18.3;

a) In the EL, that Teams #8, or a PL Rider with a PL CMA of 6.00 or less.

b ) In the PL, a NL Rider as defined in SR 18.1.3 #5

c) In the NL any Rider with a NL CMA of 3.00 or less and must ride at #6 or #7 only.

 

But there is a slight question mark over that too. The first line indicates that you can only have 3 pointer (as per 18.1.5.1 c) if 18.3 is satisfied. But this implies a contradiction to the above.

 

 

18.3 A Guest Rider is one whom replaces a regular Team Member for the whole Meeting and is permitted only subject to the following:

* Must be in a current Team Declaration

* The Guest's CMA is the same or lower (see SR 18.3.1) than the Replaced Rider

* A Guest or #8 assumes the position and CMA of the Replaced Rider.

* A Guest Rider in a "double-header" shall count as one Meeting only.

* No Rider who has appeared, or will appear at the Track on which the Meeting is being held within 180 hours before or after the fixture shall ride as a Guest Rider; unless that was a non-official Competition, an FIM or British Championship, a BSPA Shared Event, a NL Meeting held on either a EL or PL Track, is the 2nd part of a Double-Header Meeting nor if the Guest Rider is either replacing the Home Teams #1 Rider or is a NL Rider being a Guest for Home Team.

 

It seems that the NL rule 18.1.5.1 c was forgotten when writing this. In the EL and PL a replacement rider where no facility is allowed must ride in the team position of the rider he replaces. So for example if Lindgren was missing for Wolves but no facility was allowed then the replacement rider would have to ride at number 1 regardless of the fact that his average may be one of the two lowest in the team. However, in the NL the rules clearly state that the replacement rider must ride at 6 or 7. Therefore if 18.3 is not satisfied and the replacement rider does not ride in the position of the rider he is replacing then 18.1.5.1 c is void... I think!!

This is confusing, Richie has a 3 point average and he did ride #6, did that not make him elligable to ride for Buccs sorry if i am totally wrong

[21st century heathen]

The entire rule book (or set of guide lines as I usually call it ) is confusing, contradictory and open to interpretation mate.

 

I'm not familiar with the circumstances. I was just answering the initial question regarding the rule about guests covering a rider that's not ridden for the club. If someone can tell me the who's, why's and wherefore's (with averages and who rides where usually etc) I'll try to unravel the rules for this particular case.

[Edwardian]

The entire rule book (or set of guide lines as I usually call it ) is confusing, contradictory and open to interpretation mate.

 

I'm not familiar with the circumstances. I was just answering the initial question regarding the rule about guests covering a rider that's not ridden for the club. If someone can tell me the who's, why's and wherefore's (with averages and who rides where usually etc) I'll try to unravel the rules for this particular case.

Me niether wish i could be of more help mate

[lucifer sam]

And so Rye House finish fourth in the NL but aren't in the play-offs.

 

All the best

Rob

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

Yep.

Without a wheel to be turned in said play offs for over a week...!!

[willp]

And so Rye House finish fourth in the NL but aren't in the play-offs.

 

All the best

Rob

 

Plus either us (Dudley) or Buxton will finish top of the National League as well.....

[jules m]

Plus either us (Dudley) or Buxton will finish top of the National League as well.....

at the risk of getting shot down in flames i was just wondering why if the cut off date is decided before the fixture dates are decided why would a club want to run a league meeting after that date? If meetings are rained off and can only be run after the cut off date then maybe a exception could be made:-/

[britmet]

at the risk of getting shot down in flames i was just wondering why if the cut off date is decided before the fixture dates are decided why would a club want to run a league meeting after that date?

 

 

Because the Heathens (and others another year, I guess,) want to sit on top of that table and demonstrate the pointlessness

of Play-Offs, (The PL has it right !)

[waco]

The Rye House Cobras have played all their aces this week but have been done over by the national league Organizing ? Jokers !!

[jules m]

The Rye House Cobras have played all their aces this week but have been done over by the national league Organizing ? Jokers !!

but that still doesnt answer my question as to why clubs have meetings after the cut off date:-/

[waco]

but that still doesnt answer my question as to why clubs have meetings after the cut off date:-/

Have you never heard of rain offs ??? And fixture congestion when a track is running two teams ??

[Wessex Wanderer]

at the risk of getting shot down in flames i was just wondering why if the cut off date is decided before the fixture dates are decided why would a club want to run a league meeting after that date? If meetings are rained off and can only be run after the cut off date then maybe a exception could be made:-/

 

Hi Jules

 

No doubt there will be many reasons trotted out but I always reckon the most simple one is usually right. It is that you are sensible but this is Speedway so "sensible" has no place whatsoever in planning and decisions.

[waco]

Hi Jules

 

No doubt there will be many reasons trotted out but I always reckon the most simple one is usually right. It is that you are sensible but this is Speedway so "sensible" has no place whatsoever in planning and decisions.

I make you right..and a sensible date for the cut off would have been the end of sept..With the whole of Oct for the play offs..