Whats Needed In 2013.

[MrMungo]

Just checking!

 

 

 

1) Tell me why Ellis couldn't be used by the Heathens? We used Fenwick in the PO semi 2nd leg at Stoke. He's the Scunny number 8. So why couldn't Ellis, the IOW number 8, ride in the PO final 2nd leg at KL?

 

 

I don't know how or why that happened, because Mildenhall were informed earlier in the season that they weren't allowed to use a rival club's number 8.

http://www.mildenhallfentigers.co/index.php/news-centre/259-sudden-sam-to-fen-tigers-rescue

Based on that, it was the correct call re: Ellis.

Not sure about the rules about Fenwick though. Maybe a 8 can be used assuming he has a genuine, and not an assessed average?

[TMW]

I don't know how or why that happened, because Mildenhall were informed earlier in the season that they weren't allowed to use a rival club's number 8.

http://www.mildenhal...n-tigers-rescue

Based on that, it was the correct call re: Ellis.

Not sure about the rules about Fenwick though. Maybe a 8 can be used assuming he has a genuine, and not an assessed average?

 

Lewis Rose also guested for Buxton at RH as KLYS declared No8.

 

I don't think you get an assessed ave in the NL now that the Commonwealth patriality thing has been thrown out as they used to get 6 didn't they ???

 

A bit unfair on No.8's really if they don't get any rides with 'their' team and they can't guest for others either. The 2 seasons ago Richie Worrall was guesting all over the place and it paid off.

Edited November 2, 2012 by TMW

[Jayne]

Lewis Rose also guested for Buxton at RH as KLYS declared No8.

 

 

 

No he didn't as Kings Lynn took him out of their 1-8 and Buxton had him in theirs at the time.

[Swift Saint]

I asked the referee on the afternoon of the Stoke v Dudley Play Off match about the use of Fenwick.

 

Craig Ackroyd advised that he checked the matter out with Mr Morrish and that his use was approved.

 

Last year in the KO Cup Final Stoke were forced to use an unattached 3.00 point rider (Oliver Greenwood) to replace the injured Gareth Isherwood.

 

I can find no rule about this.

 

I am making no comment just stating the facts. It was always my belief that unattached riders only could be used.

 

Clearly a rule has to be included for next season.

 

I will do my best to make this issue clear for the future.

 

 

Malcolm Vasey

[Halifaxtiger]

Rule 18.2.3 covers facilities for absent riders in the NL:

 

a) Absent #1: G (who must be in a NL Line-Up) or RR

Absent Rider (2 – 5): RR

c) any other Absences: any Rider on the "Emergency List"

 

The only problem is there is no definition of what precisely the 'Emergency List' is, and where is anyone to find out who is on this list and who is not ?

 

Surely this should be made available to all teams for the purpose of not only getting riders into their team but checking whether the oppositions use is legal or not ?

 

Then again, when has adherence to written regulations been part of the decision making process of British Speedway ?

 

[Swift Saint]

I have never seen this Emergency List and I think that rule is out of date.

 

Perhaps Jayne has seen it.

 

By definition it could hardly include riders in a Team's Declaration.

 

 

Malcolm Vasey

[SteveEvans]

13 heat format might not be so bad for NL.

 

Run it as old skool speedway. Tac subs too. Might get some more fans by being different.

 

Run a 2nd half with all the riders in after.

 

13 heats also makes double headers easier to run which may attract some EL or PL teams in with limited dates.

 

Just my thoughts.

[blueherb777]

Personally if there's going to be a format change I'd favour the 'traditional' 13 heats format. But really that HAS to be on the basis there's also a (minimum) six heat second half. Six heats allows for a AJL/MDL/NJL style match or when not, one of those races for non-team members, juniors or indeed a mini second half competition.

I've missed the story about Cov too... Pray tell..!

 

Serious question Parsloes.

Is Central Park dead in the water ?

 

Cheers.

[Neil H]

The old 13 heat format was dropped after the top flight meetings had riders pulling out of 2nd half's to fly off to the continent. A proper 2nd half with novice races, 4-race 'rider of the night' event, etc at NL level would give all levels of rider extra track time.

[Jayne]

I have never seen this Emergency List and I think that rule is out of date.

 

Perhaps Jayne has seen it.

 

By definition it could hardly include riders in a Team's Declaration.

 

 

Malcolm Vasey

 

No I haven't seen it but as I understand only one rider registered their interest to be included on the list. The idea behind it was that any unattached rider would, on request, be included on the list which would be held by the office. Any team short of a rider, whose only option was an unattached 3pt rider as a replacement, would be able to check the list to see who was available. Unfortunately the idea didn't really take off and there is a distinct lack of riders that you can use to make up for absences which aren't covered by the guest or r/r option.

[greyhoundp]

My understanding is that one race costs, basically the wages for those riders, would hardly make or break a promoter, I would say get an extra few people through the door would cover that element. Costs such as medical cover, rent to a stadium owner, insurance, health and safety issues that have to be addressed, then the overall wage bill will obviously have an affect, but by ditching one race, I doubt, would save a troubled club.

 

Its not only about cutting 1 Heat, no-one believes that in itself makes or breaks a Team, there needs to be a whole package; Top of them HAS to be to cut costs for riders, combined with reduced costs for the promoters, this then HAS to be passed on to the supporters, cut out the delays between Heats, especially on re-runs, The 13 Heat formula with a 2nd half is a great Idea, if this can be done, especially if it includes Amateur League racing, especially if the reserves from each Team could be included. Free Admission for kids with a parent is a must.

[Halifaxtiger]

I have never seen this Emergency List and I think that rule is out of date.

 

Perhaps Jayne has seen it.

 

By definition it could hardly include riders in a Team's Declaration.

 

 

Malcolm Vasey

 

Unless the SCB Regulations published in February 2012 have been updated, that's the rule.

 

I'd agree on the your view of the definition, Malcolm...........which means I'd also agree that you got short changed that day.

 

The problem, it seems to me, is that you have someone making rulings who doesn't know the letter of the applicable legislation or is making it up as they go along. That's unacceptable as decision making simply must be consistent.

 

No I haven't seen it but as I understand only one rider registered their interest to be included on the list. The idea behind it was that any unattached rider would, on request, be included on the list which would be held by the office. Any team short of a rider, whose only option was an unattached 3pt rider as a replacement, would be able to check the list to see who was available. Unfortunately the idea didn't really take off and there is a distinct lack of riders that you can use to make up for absences which aren't covered by the guest or r/r option.

 

It sounds like a fair idea in practice but for it to be effective it must have been well publicised. As someone who has sponsored a junior rider for some years, I have never heard of it until I was looking up the relevant rule.

 

While Malcolm is, in my opinion, definitely right about No 8 riders it seems a shame that if they are only a No 8 they would be excluded from having other rides for other teams when there is a shortage of available, qualifying riders.

[Halifaxtiger]

At this stage, I think the points limit is something that must be a matter of compromise between the different clubs in the NL and a balance between the running costs of the clubs with smaller attendances and the ability of most of the stand alone teams to attract enough supporters to make them viable. There must be fair dialogue with both sides recognising the needs of the others because for the league to remain credible it needs to retain all of its current participants.

 

I'd maintain that allowing one foreigner (of which ever persuasion) into each team does not damage the development role of the league to an unnecessary degree and they can be a major pull for supporters,Cameron Heeps being an obvious example. They would come in on an average of about 7.00, so they would not replace a British youngsters.

 

I'd say that the one over 30 rule should stay. It allows that rider to pass on his experience - the tributes paid to Dean Felton for his help to younger team mates are clear evidence of that - but prevents the league being overwhelmed with more experienced competitors who will take the place of someone much younger. We don't want to get back to the point where Plymouth had 3 riders over 35 and so prevent the league fulfilling its development role.

 

I see nothing wrong with the current format of 15 heats and very much agree with Kev's point about heat 15.

 

I would say that in the event of injury to any rider, rider replacement would be used. If a second rider was injured, then a guest might be brought in and that would apply to a third rider if necessary. That would avoid the situation of a team being massively weakened (similar to Dudley in the NL final) without swamping the league with guests.

 

As to double up riders, I see no reason why a team should not have as many as they dare but priority in fixtures would depend on which club the rider was an asset of. In the event of the rider not being owned by either, the club owning the riders contract would decide. That means that the team owning the riders contract are permitted to take the action they see fit for the riders development (hopefully having taken account of the riders views).

 

With respect to the management of the league, I think it is clear that Peter Morrish is pretty much a discredited figure and that opinion extends to almost everyone I have spoken to right across the speedway spectrum. My own view is that that would be someone with considerable experience of the league who is a respected figure within the sport itself. My candidate would be Dale Allitt.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Halifaxtiger

[TMW]

No I haven't seen it but as I understand only one rider registered their interest to be included on the list. The idea behind it was that any unattached rider would, on request, be included on the list which would be held by the office. Any team short of a rider, whose only option was an unattached 3pt rider as a replacement, would be able to check the list to see who was available. Unfortunately the idea didn't really take off and there is a distinct lack of riders that you can use to make up for absences which aren't covered by the guest or r/r option.

 

No he didn't as Kings Lynn took him out of their 1-8 and Buxton had him in theirs at the time.

 

Oh ok sorry !!!! I missed the No.8 rule or agreement.

 

I have never seen this Emergency List and I think that rule is out of date.

 

 

Malcolm Vasey

 

I supose the lads that would go on it are probably already on a team's radar and therefore said team maybe reluctant to put them on it as they could maybe guest for someone else and be 'spotted'. eg Ellis, Coles.

[coban78]

I think main problem for teams expencis they have only 20-25 five meeting but they have to pay 52 week rent, weggies ect. In my point of view they have to think put other sort of event like stock cars, greayhound, quards race, F1...