Tr Farce Of A Rule.

[msc1874]

I hate the TR rule. Farce team works hard to get ten up, then it blows up in one heat. It's a joke. I preferred the tactical sub rule. Hate the TR it's a joke...

[Backless]

Jesus H Christ … you'll be moaning about lay down engines next

[Arson fire]

Must be a moanarch fan

[BWitcher]

I hate the TR rule. Farce team works hard to get ten up, then it blows up in one heat. It's a joke. I preferred the tactical sub rule. Hate the TR it's a joke...

 

Yawn.

 

The old tactical rule, that teams can nail you as soon as you were 6 up.. and then again.. and sometimes again..

 

There is no validity in your argument at all, as the 'old' rule was more 'unfair' than it is now.

Edited May 18, 2013 by BWitcher

[msc1874]

 

 

Yawn.

 

The old tactical rule, that teams can nail you as soon as you were 6 up.. and then again.. and sometimes again..

 

There is no validity in your argument at all, as the 'old' rule was more 'unfair' than it is now.

 

There is no validity? Ok.

 

A team gets 10 up and within a race the deficit can be reduced to by 7. At least with a tactical sub it was bam a 5-1. I don't like how it unbalances the score. I think if your 10 down suck it in. Best team and all that. The tactical sub rule to me in my opinion was a better rule. With tweaking perhaps in terms of when it could be used, for me was a better option.

 

I've seen my team take some beatings on the road. But for me the double points makes no sense. It would not happen in any other sport.

 

The comment about complaining about engines is ridiculous. Honestly some people on here. Tunnel vision agree with me or I will slag you off and shoot you down. Why because you don't agree with my point of view.

 

My point of view is every bit as valid as anybody else's on here.

 

Statements like "yawn" and you have no point shows that you having nothing constructive to contribute to a debate.

 

 

 

Jesus H Christ … you'll be moaning about lay down engines next

 

Obviously you can't read...

[SCB]

If you're 10 down, an 8-1 makes you 3 down. But you'd have got a 5-1 anyway and only been 6 down. Swing of 3 points.

 

You're 6 down, you use two TSs and get a 5-1 so you're now 2 down but without the TSs you get 5-1d and you're then 10 down. A swing of 8.

 

TRs make a difference of 3, with old TS makes a difference of 8. Now which is better?

[Arson fire]

 

 

There is no validity? Ok.

 

A team gets 10 up and within a race the deficit can be reduced to by 7. At least with a tactical sub it was bam a 5-1. I don't like how it unbalances the score. I think if your 10 down suck it in. Best team and all that. The tactical sub rule to me in my opinion was a better rule. With tweaking perhaps in terms of when it could be used, for me was a better option.

 

I've seen my team take some beatings on the road. But for me the double points makes no sense. It would not happen in any other sport.

 

The comment about complaining about engines is ridiculous. Honestly some people on here. Tunnel vision agree with me or I will slag you off and shoot you down. Why because you don't agree with my point of view.

 

My point of view is every bit as valid as anybody else's on here.

 

Statements like "yawn" and you have no point shows that you having nothing constructive to contribute to a debate.

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously you can't read...

notice you started this thread after Plymouth used one against Edinburgh tonight, I'm wondering.... Why didnt you post this last season when your team wasn't so good and used them more than they have this season.?? Just asking??

[BWitcher]

There is no validity? Ok.

 

My point of view is every bit as valid as anybody else's on here.

 

Obviously you can't read...

 

It's not a point of view. You are mathematically wrong. End of.

 

If you're 10 down, an 8-1 makes you 3 down. But you'd have got a 5-1 anyway and only been 6 down. Swing of 3 points.

 

You're 6 down, you use two TSs and get a 5-1 so you're now 2 down but without the TSs you get 5-1d and you're then 10 down. A swing of 8.

 

TRs make a difference of 3, with old TS makes a difference of 8. Now which is better?

 

Precisely, the old tac sub rule meant extra rides for the losing teams top riders, less riders for their weaker ones, meaning less opportunity for the winning team to build up a lead.

[Kester]

notice you started this thread after Plymouth used one against Edinburgh tonight, I'm wondering.... Why didnt you post this last season when your team wasn't so good and used them more than they have this season.?? Just asking??

 

And this sums it up really doesn't it. Personally speaking, if a t/r is used against Birmingham I think it's a shambolic rule, giving the dirty, cheating opposition an opportunity to benefit despite being rubbish. If Birmingham benefit from one it's an excellent rule, ensuring that meetings are closer and more exciting.

[ch958]

the idea is sound - you don't want teams running away with matches because unlike football that's rarely entertaining

 

however - double points is micky mouse and makes the sport look stupid

 

tac sub is better but it doesnt have to be 6 points behind - it could be 7 or 8

 

or the tac sub could start 10 mtrs back or be given 5 second penalty (sits at tapes for 5 secs, or 3 secs or whatever)

 

i think its inportant to have something to keep matches alive without being too advantageous to losing sides

[Backless]

notice you started this thread after Plymouth used one against Edinburgh tonight, I'm wondering.... Why didnt you post this last season when your team wasn't so good and used them more than they have this season.?? Just asking??

 

Or indeed at any point in time in the more than a decade since the rule came in and sad sacks have moaned about it - despite it being no less unfair than pulling a hapless reserve out of a race & replacing him with a high scoring number one.

[The White Knight]

The Tactical Ride is basically flawed and unfair.

 

I have Posted on this subject on a number of occasions. Tactical Ride, Tactical Substitutes or whatever System you employ is GIVING an advantage to one Team over another. In my view, this is neither Sporting or Honest.

 

In my humble opinion, if there were NO advantages given Speedway would be much better off. You MIGHT get the odd 75-15 Result - but either of these Systems would be of use in that situation. I would settle for watching Teams win by a big margin, that is the Sport, that is the nature of Sport. If my Team takes a hiding, it means they are not good enough, so be it. THAT IS SPORT. Speedway has a credibility problem - Double Points does not help with this.

 

In League Speedway SPORT is about Competition between TEAMS, it is NOT about GIFTING advantages to one Team or the other. People wonder why Supporters are leaving the Sport. ONE of the reasons, I KNOW, is the use of the Tactical Ride giving unfair advantage to the opposition.

 

I know too that those who support the System say that it results in closer Meetings, this is true - BUT CRUCIALLY - it is a CONTRIVED closeness. Actually, it is basically dishonest - it means that in some cases the WORST Team on the day wins.

 

I would suggest that THAT is a big CREDIBILITY problem.

[Brujas Espanolas]

It depends what you want when you go to speedway. If your idea of an entertaining meeting is one where the scores are close, then the current system that keeps scores artificially close is more than adequate, and saves promoters money.

 

On the other hand if you are more interested in seeing close racing then undoubtedly the old TS was better. It was certainly a better spectacle watching the oppositions' better riders take additional rides, rather than some no hoper wobbling around adrift at the back.

[Arson fire]

The Tactical Ride is basically flawed and unfair.

 

I have Posted on this subject on a number of occasions. Tactical Ride, Tactical Substitutes or whatever System you employ is GIVING an advantage to one Team over another. In my view, this is neither Sporting or Honest.

 

In my humble opinion, if there were NO advantages given Speedway would be much better off. You MIGHT get the odd 75-15 Result - but either of these Systems would be of use in that situation. I would settle for watching Teams win by a big margin, that is the Sport, that is the nature of Sport. If my Team takes a hiding, it means they are not good enough, so be it. THAT IS SPORT. Speedway has a credibility problem - Double Points does not help with this.

 

In League Speedway SPORT is about Competition between TEAMS, it is NOT about GIFTING advantages to one Team or the other. People wonder why Supporters are leaving the Sport. ONE of the reasons, I KNOW, is the use of the Tactical Ride giving unfair advantage to the opposition.

 

I know too that those who support the System say that it results in closer Meetings, this is true - BUT CRUCIALLY - it is a CONTRIVED closeness. Actually, it is basically dishonest - it means that in some cases the WORST Team on the day wins.

 

I would suggest that THAT is a big CREDIBILITY problem.

took your time spotting this thread didnt you

[BWitcher]

On the other hand if you are more interested in seeing close racing then undoubtedly the old TS was better. It was certainly a better spectacle watching the oppositions' better riders take additional rides, rather than some no hoper wobbling around adrift at the back.

 

Was it?

 

More often than not a top rider was brought in against lesser riders.. so Heat 8 for example was turned from a race with very likely 4 fairly evenly matched riders (2nd string and reserves) to a race with a no 1 in it. Thus creating the situation you complain about.

 

For all the talk and bluster from the usual suspects who try to justify their reasoning with it being 'unfair' and 'drives fans' away.. the FACTS remain, the old system was much more unfair AND it was in existence for a long time AND the sport had no problem with attendances for much of that time. Thus, there is no correlation between what folk think is 'fair' and attendances.

[daveallan81]

There is no correlation between closeness of scoreline and quality of entertainment. Nor does any exist between the myriad 'equalisation' methods the sport employs and closeness of scoreline. The purpose of the TR must be to facilitate this parity otherwise it has no meaning. If the scoreline alone generates enough buzz to satisfy your cravings then I put it to you that you are in the minority. The empty terraces testify to that. No-one ever said "Oh Blahtown Lizards have had 4 really close scores, let's go next time."

 

Talk of 'playing a joker' and 'double points' is a shocking piece of promotion by a sport that is supposed to be about risking life and limb. This isn't a seventies game show. No brakes. No gears. No fear. Wear the special hat, get double points.

 

I submit that the number of people the game show rules keep away from the sport, far outstrips the numbers attracted by the manipulation of scorelines.

[moxey63]

How can the TR be fair - it breaks speedway's longstanding rules of 3 points for a win etc? It’s a joke and is like having two throws in a snakes-and-ladders game. It is seen as childish to most. As regards the old TS, which I prefer and feel its demise has meant less interesting matches, so, alright, riders were often introduced in heats where lower standing opponents were in - but it didn't always mean the switch worked... and it added interest, seeing if the top man could get his wings clipped.

Now, even when TR works, it rarely makes much difference in the outcome of the result and speedway matches are more predictable than they were under Tac Sub.

Nowadays, with TR, if the move fails you have to wait another calendar month before you can use you second double. As long as you remained six in arrears, the old TS put the pressure on the leading side until all advances on their lead had been doused.

The old TS was much more attractive to terrace team managers and even in the most boring race-meeting often kept fans awake pondering who was coming in for who.

[BWitcher]

How can the TR be fair - it breaks speedway's longstanding rules of 3 points for a win etc? It’s a joke and is like having two throws in a snakes-and-ladders game. It is seen as childish to most. As regards the old TS, which I prefer and feel its demise has meant less interesting matches, so, alright, riders were often introduced in heats where lower standing opponents were in - but it didn't always mean the switch worked... and it added interest, seeing if the top man could get his wings clipped.

Now, even when TR works, it rarely makes much difference in the outcome of the result and speedway matches are more predictable than they were under Tac Sub.

Nowadays, with TR, if the move fails you have to wait another calendar month before you can use you second double. As long as you remained six in arrears, the old TS put the pressure on the leading side until all advances on their lead had been doused.

The old TS was much more attractive to terrace team managers and even in the most boring race-meeting often kept fans awake pondering who was coming in for who.

 

Bizarre post.. you start by asking how can the TR be 'fair', then make a long post showing it's a lot fairer than the previous system!

 

For what it's worth, I preferred the old system.. as you say Moxey, it was great when your lesser riders beat the tac subs (the same can be said now to an extent though). I can also understand folk thinking its 'silly' that someone can score double points... these are valid points. Complaining the current system is unfair and the old one wasn't simply is NOT valid.

 

There is no correlation between closeness of scoreline and quality of entertainment. Nor does any exist between the myriad 'equalisation' methods the sport employs and closeness of scoreline. The purpose of the TR must be to facilitate this parity otherwise it has no meaning. If the scoreline alone generates enough buzz to satisfy your cravings then I put it to you that you are in the minority. The empty terraces testify to that. No-one ever said "Oh Blahtown Lizards have had 4 really close scores, let's go next time."

 

Talk of 'playing a joker' and 'double points' is a shocking piece of promotion by a sport that is supposed to be about risking life and limb. This isn't a seventies game show. No brakes. No gears. No fear. Wear the special hat, get double points.

 

I submit that the number of people the game show rules keep away from the sport, far outstrips the numbers attracted by the manipulation of scorelines.

 

Hmm.. Some good points in there, however there is a big correlation between the closeness of the score and the 'perceived' entertainment. A bog standard (racing wise) meeting that goes to a last heat decider will seem a better meeting than a similar one that resulted in a 20pt win. Where do you think the phrase 'Happiness is 40-38' came from?

[moxey63]

Nobody will ever convince me that today Double-Bubble rule is more credible than the Tac Sub. How can a rule be worthy of a professional sport if it allows a teammate to make sure his partner finishes ahead of him, and the farcical situation of riders slowing down yards in front of the finishing line? Is this racing - or is it throwing races? A serious sport doesn’t need such antics.

Pedersen and Crump, in one the recent World Cups, proved Double-Points could sometimes be too much of a carrot to dangle - even in front of so-called professionals.

Part of the interest for me went when Golden Doubles came in. But, it is all about opinions. I no longer attend, you perhaps do. How many no longer attend because of bizarre rule changes?

[The White Knight]

Was it?

 

More often than not a top rider was brought in against lesser riders.. so Heat 8 for example was turned from a race with very likely 4 fairly evenly matched riders (2nd string and reserves) to a race with a no 1 in it. Thus creating the situation you complain about.

 

For all the talk and bluster from the usual suspects who try to justify their reasoning with it being 'unfair' and 'drives fans' away.. the FACTS remain, the old system was much more unfair AND it was in existence for a long time AND the sport had no problem with attendances for much of that time. Thus, there is no correlation between what folk think is 'fair' and attendances.

 

If you read my Post BW - you will see my argument is against ALL forms of engineering close Results - even the Tactical Substitute System.

 

Leave the Sport a SPORT and STOP trying to CON the Public with FALSE Results.