Tr Farce Of A Rule.

[noggin]

Although I preferred the original tac sub rule to this mickey mouse one, which would be more bearable if say you could use it twice when 8 or 10 behind, by replacing a rider, but not for double points and perhaps certain heats (8 for example) being excempt from changes other than reserve, and back to any heat upto 14 not 12.

[daveallan81]

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?

 

I'm attempting to quantify the quality of entertainment on offer against the swathes of empty terraces which, in the entertainment industry which speedway purports to abide, tends to indicate your product is failing. If a match where "the scoreline belied the racing" (copyright everyone who's ever written about speedway ever) can co-exist in the same sport with one where "the closeness of the scoreline kept things interesting" (copyright as above) then there can be no correlation.

 

Happiness was indeed touted as 40-38. But was it championing the closeness of the score and the thrill of the last heat decider, or simply boldly proclaiming your team won? Was it still happiness if you had watched ten lousy heats of a pointless challenge match in the pouring rain in October that tied the match up before you shipped three 5-1's that saw your heat leader trio wiped out for the season in pile-ups? Yeh, show me that badge...

 

Or as I suspect does it conjour up dreams of perfect tracks in perfect stadiums on perfect nights serving up perfect speedway with perfect riders passing perfectly in every heat, the climax of which is a nerve-shredding final heat where they pass and re-pass over and over in a sixty-odd second maelstrom of shale and leather and steel before they flash past the chequered flag and you collapse, spent, to your knees holding your by now half-eaten programme board aloft and in that one second, that tiniest moment in time, you know that you are ALIVE!

 

Both finished 40-38 but I know what one they're going to cover in Backtrack.

[The Third Man]

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?

 

not quite how it works, with a tac sub you gained an extra 2 points, 3 - 3 to a 1 - 5, with the tac rule you gain 5 points 3 - 3 to 1 - 8, so you need three tac subs 1 - 5 to gain on a one heat 1 - 8, and you can use two which means a possible gain of 10 points, impossible under the old rules, now which is better?

Edited May 19, 2013 by The Third Man

[BWitcher]

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?

 

Nobody is arguing against more credible.. its when people say it is more unfair, it isn't.

 

not quite how it works, with a tac sub you gained an extra 2 points, 3 - 3 to a 1 - 5, with the tac rule you gain 5 points 3 - 3 to 1 - 8, so you need three tac subs 1 - 5 to gain on a one heat 1 - 8, and you can use two which means a possible gain of 10 points, impossible under the old rules, now which is better?

 

Wrong. With a tactical sub you were usually replacing a rider that was going to finish last.. Sometimes you'd do a double tac sub in a heat where you would be replacing two riders likely to get 5-1's.

 

It doesn't matter how you spin it, the old tac sub rule was far more advantageous to the losing team than the current ruling.

 

I'm attempting to quantify the quality of entertainment on offer against the swathes of empty terraces which, in the entertainment industry which speedway purports to abide, tends to indicate your product is failing. If a match where "the scoreline belied the racing" (copyright everyone who's ever written about speedway ever) can co-exist in the same sport with one where "the closeness of the scoreline kept things interesting" (copyright as above) then there can be no correlation.

 

Happiness was indeed touted as 40-38. But was it championing the closeness of the score and the thrill of the last heat decider, or simply boldly proclaiming your team won? Was it still happiness if you had watched ten lousy heats of a pointless challenge match in the pouring rain in October that tied the match up before you shipped three 5-1's that saw your heat leader trio wiped out for the season in pile-ups? Yeh, show me that badge...

 

Or as I suspect does it conjour up dreams of perfect tracks in perfect stadiums on perfect nights serving up perfect speedway with perfect riders passing perfectly in every heat, the climax of which is a nerve-shredding final heat where they pass and re-pass over and over in a sixty-odd second maelstrom of shale and leather and steel before they flash past the chequered flag and you collapse, spent, to your knees holding your by now half-eaten programme board aloft and in that one second, that tiniest moment in time, you know that you are ALIVE!

 

Both finished 40-38 but I know what one they're going to cover in Backtrack.

 

So many holes in your post, you seem to be desperately trying to link the gaps in the terraces to tactical rules. .

 

We've also coverered the 'entertainment aspect' (which I assume you mean the standard of the racing) on numerous threads and most with any sense.. and indeed the available evidence shows there isn't much difference between the racing now to previous years.

 

Facts are, a close meeting with poor racing will always seem better than a one sided hammering with poor racing. By the same token a close meeting with great racing will also seem a lot better than a one side hammering with great racing.

Edited May 19, 2013 by BWitcher

[moxey63]

Although the rule was swiftly played about with afterwards, when it made the sport a right old laughing stock (even to loyal diehards), the Golden Double has been known to be unfair.

 

Anyone recall a certain Play-Off Final between Reading and Peterborough, think t'was 2006? Surely any sport who wanted to retain/return a bit of saving face should have ditched the rule over the nearest grass verge there and then.

 

I know, I know, the rule was altered because of what happened to Reading back then... but it showed how unfair it can be.

Edited May 19, 2013 by moxey63

[BWitcher]

Although the rule was swiftly played about with afterwards, the Golden Double has been known to be unfair - Anyone recall a certain Play-Off Final between Reading and Peterborough, think t'was 2006?

 

MORE unfair Moxey.. all such rules as White Knight corretly says can be deemed as being unfair to the winning team. Its the misconception that some have that it is 'more' unfair that is wrong.

[msc1874]

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

You are typical of some of the keyboard warriors on here who can't stand a person having a difference of opinion. For me I am not a fan of tactical changes full stop. I get it keeping things closer etc.. But for me I'd rather go watch racing and if a team loses they lose by 2 or 20. Same way I view watching my rugby, football and softball teams.

 

I would say the same if it was my team gaining an advantage. Sat at Workington last Easter comets are pummelling the monarchs. Cook scores double points I turn to my mrs and say the score flatters us we are not worth that. Even getting hammered I enjoyed the banter with the comets fans round about us.

 

I am just going to ignore posts directed at me from Bwitcher or whatever the person wants to call themselves because they are not willing to recognise somebody else's point of view. Maybe they should move to North Korea, feel at home under that type of rule

[stratton]

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

Yawn.

[moxey63]

I think Peterborough clawed back (using Golden Double - two 8-1s) something like 14 points over two heats in the Play-Off Final, 2006, a lot different than had it been the old tac-sub (would have been 8 points). Peterborough won on aggregate, 95-94. Under the old tac-sub rule, using standard 3, 2, 1, 0 scoring system, Reading would have been easy (and derserving) victors. It proves a different scoring system than the normal method has its advantages to those who utilize it properly.

 

Speedway Star asked readers immediately after the play-off final to vote for or against the GD rule. Over 91.9% voted for its abolishment from the 1161 votes cast - only 94 voters wanted to keep it!

 

How many disillusioned fans began voting with their feet from then on.

[stratton]

 

 

You are typical of some of the keyboard warriors on here who can't stand a person having a difference of opinion. For me I am not a fan of tactical changes full stop. I get it keeping things closer etc.. But for me I'd rather go watch racing and if a team loses they lose by 2 or 20. Same way I view watching my rugby, football and softball teams.

 

I would say the same if it was my team gaining an advantage. Sat at Workington last Easter comets are pummelling the monarchs. Cook scores double points I turn to my mrs and say the score flatters us we are not worth that. Even getting hammered I enjoyed the banter with the comets fans round about us.

 

I am just going to ignore posts directed at me from Bwitcher or whatever the person wants to call themselves because they are not willing to recognise somebody else's point of view. Maybe they should move to North Korea, feel at home under that type of rule

I will do the same 'msc,there is no point does it matter who is right or wrong?.

 

[SCB]

not quite how it works, with a tac sub you gained an extra 2 points, 3 - 3 to a 1 - 5, with the tac rule you gain 5 points 3 - 3 to 1 - 8, so you need three tac subs 1 - 5 to gain on a one heat 1 - 8, and you can use two which means a possible gain of 10 points, impossible under the old rules, now which is better?

That makes no sense what so ever.

 

Firstly you say a 3-3 becomes an 8-1, how? Let's assume you win the race it's a 6-3. Are you really suggesting that if Sheffield give Jake Knight a TR he'll win the race but without a TR he'll come last? All the TR does us double one riders points, if he's scores 6 he would have scored 3 anyway. Difference of 3, it can ONLY be a maximum of 3 points gained.

 

As for a tac sub going from 3-3 to 5-1. You're right, it could if you were already going to win tbe race, let's accept that true and you replace 1 rider, you go from scoring 3 to scoring 5 do gain 2 points but your opposition go from scoring 3 to scoring 1 so lose 2. You gain 2, they lose 2, that's 4 points. But you could use 2 TSs in a race do going from 1-5 to 5-1 is 4 more for you and 4 less for them, a swing of 8.

 

I think Peterborough clawed back (using Golden Double - two 8-1s) something like 14 points over two heats in the Play-Off Final, 2006, a lot different than had it been the old tac-sub (would have been 8 points). Peterborough won on aggregate, 95-94. Under the old tac-sub rule, using standard 3, 2, 1, 0 scoring system, Reading would have been easy (and derserving) victors. It proves a different scoring system than the normal method has its advantages to those who utilize it properly.

No, under the old rules Peterborough would have had to take 5 points off Reading (Readings 94-5 is 89). Do you think Hans and Sullivan would not have been able to win a couple of tac sub rides.

 

Ostergaard would not have been in heat 12 for a start, there's 2 points gained.

Edited May 19, 2013 by SCB

[BluPanther]

Dress it up how you will, the fact remains that 'jokers and tactical rides' are absolutely ridiculous...

[The White Knight]

That makes no sense what so ever.

 

Firstly you say a 3-3 becomes an 8-1, how? Let's assume you win the race it's a 6-3. Are you really suggesting that if Sheffield give Jake Knight a TR he'll win the race but without a TR he'll come last? All the TR does us double one riders points, if he's scores 6 he would have scored 3 anyway. Difference of 3, it can ONLY be a maximum of 3 points gained.

 

As for a tac sub going from 3-3 to 5-1. You're right, it could if you were already going to win tbe race, let's accept that true and you replace 1 rider, you go from scoring 3 to scoring 5 do gain 2 points but your opposition go from scoring 3 to scoring 1 so lose 2. You gain 2, they lose 2, that's 4 points. But you could use 2 TSs in a race do going from 1-5 to 5-1 is 4 more for you and 4 less for them, a swing of 8.

 

No, under the old rules Peterborough would have had to take 5 points off Reading (Readings 94-5 is 89). Do you think Hans and Sullivan would not have been able to win a couple of tac sub rides?

 

That is the whole point - there should be NO Substitutes, Double Points or anything else. The Sport of Speedway is about Speedway RACING and NOT about concocted Results. This is why SOME Supporters at least, are leaving the Sport. THAT is also where the Sport has a big credibility problem.

[orion]

You are typical of some of the keyboard warriors on here who can't stand a person having a difference of opinion. For me I am not a fan of tactical changes full stop. I get it keeping things closer etc.. But for me I'd rather go watch racing and if a team loses they lose by 2 or 20. Same way I view watching my rugby, football and softball teams.

 

I would say the same if it was my team gaining an advantage. Sat at Workington last Easter comets are pummelling the monarchs. Cook scores double points I turn to my mrs and say the score flatters us we are not worth that. Even getting hammered I enjoyed the banter with the comets fans round about us.

 

I am just going to ignore posts directed at me from Bwitcher or whatever the person wants to call themselves because they are not willing to recognise somebody else's point of view. Maybe they should move to North Korea, feel at home under that type of rule

Nothing to do with a difference of opinion you posted something that is totally wrong ...as has been pointed out to you the old system was less fair that what we have now . If you like to explain us how this is not the case then feel free . The biggest laugh now is that your blocking someone just because they don't agree with you, maybe you should move to North Korea .

Edited May 19, 2013 by orion

[daveallan81]

So many holes in your post, you seem to be desperately trying to link the gaps in the terraces to tactical rules.

 

We've also coverered the 'entertainment aspect' (which I assume you mean the standard of the racing) on numerous threads and most with any sense.. and indeed the available evidence shows there isn't much difference between the racing now to previous years.

 

Facts are, a close meeting with poor racing will always seem better than a one sided hammering with poor racing. By the same token a close meeting with great racing will also seem a lot better than a one side hammering with great racing.

 

Let's just nip that in the bud shall we? Desperately? As in I've got something to prove or say? My opinion is as worthless and reprehensible as anyone else's, it's just your bad luck that I've chosen to inflict my inane drivel on this forum on this day. Who cares what I think, I just felt like typing it out because I couldn't get a decent feed for Poland. Feel free to copy and paste that into your signature and then we can all get along.

 

Correlation. Two random values. Value 1, the scoreline. Value 2, the attendance. The TR ride serves no other purpose than to close the scoreline, therefore it must be assumed the powers that be think yes. Positive correlation.

 

Again, two random values. Value 1, the scoreline, Value 2, the feeling/perception of being entertained. Evidence says some say yes, some say no. This could also be seen as the reason for the TR existence in the belief that the below is perceived as true, but can just as easily be disregarded as we have already read.

 

This time Value 1, the feeling/perception of being entertained, Value 2, the attendance. One would like to think so, but is there any true evidence that the greatest entertainment boosts your crowds in speedway? You can't do better than sending your crowd home happy. The only conclusions to be drawn here are the two are linked and we've been sending folk home scunnered to the back teeth, or it makes no odds to them. Otherwise crowds would be increasing.

 

Therefore we must conclude that the powers believe that the TR rule facilitates either increased entertainment leading to higher attendances, or that the scoreline alone is enough to generate the numbers. As we have established, the TR rule has no other purpose. Crowds are falling, the TR must be regarded as a variable in those statistics. The rulemakers believe that generating closer scorelines points to higher attendances when the current evidence is to the contrary. I have no interest in it's rights and wrongs, purely whether it can be considered a player in the downfall of our sport. There can be no other sport that wallows so serenely in it's homemade mathematical soup of defeat.

 

There, stick that on a badge...

[scunny1]

In my humble opinion a home side should not be allowed a TR.If they are so far behind at home, they don't deserve an inflated chance to catch up and drastically affect a match.

[The Third Man]

That makes no sense what so ever.

 

Firstly you say a 3-3 becomes an 8-1, how? Let's assume you win the race it's a 6-3. Are you really suggesting that if Sheffield give Jake Knight a TR he'll win the race but without a TR he'll come last? All the TR does us double one riders points, if he's scores 6 he would have scored 3 anyway. Difference of 3, it can ONLY be a maximum of 3 points gained.

 

agree did not think that one through it would have been a five one, but still a swing of three points and not two as in the old rule, so i suppose that three old tac subs would be the same as two new ones, but that would make it more difficult because you would have to suppy three heat winners and not two.

 

it also does away with riders stopping racing to let a team mate through, which the referee could in theory stop by excluding the rider for not racing, if that is still in the rules?

 

As for a tac sub going from 3-3 to 5-1. You're right, it could if you were already going to win tbe race, let's accept that true and you replace 1 rider, you go from scoring 3 to scoring 5 do gain 2 points but your opposition go from scoring 3 to scoring 1 so lose 2. You gain 2, they lose 2, that's 4 points. But you could use 2 TSs in a race do going from 1-5 to 5-1 is 4 more for you and 4 less for them, a swing of 8.

 

No, under the old rules Peterborough would have had to take 5 points off Reading (Readings 94-5 is 89). Do you think Hans and Sullivan would not have been able to win a couple of tac sub rides.

 

Ostergaard would not have been in heat 12 for a start, there's 2 points gained.

 

wasnt looking at a particular match just in general

Edited May 19, 2013 by The Third Man

[noggin]

When Sky dump Speedway there will be no need for this micky mouse rule, as sir shoutalot will be back in his padded cell.

[BWitcher]

You are typical of some of the keyboard warriors on here who can't stand a person having a difference of opinion. For me I am not a fan of tactical changes full stop. I get it keeping things closer etc.. But for me I'd rather go watch racing and if a team loses they lose by 2 or 20. Same way I view watching my rugby, football and softball teams.

 

I would say the same if it was my team gaining an advantage. Sat at Workington last Easter comets are pummelling the monarchs. Cook scores double points I turn to my mrs and say the score flatters us we are not worth that. Even getting hammered I enjoyed the banter with the comets fans round about us.

 

I am just going to ignore posts directed at me from Bwitcher or whatever the person wants to call themselves because they are not willing to recognise somebody else's point of view. Maybe they should move to North Korea, feel at home under that type of rule

 

Can you read? Can you count?

 

It seems not from the post above. I have not questioned the fairness of Tac rides, tac subs, per se. It has simply been pointed out to you that you are WRONG in your assertion that the current double pt tac rule is more unfair than the old system. It isn't and that is a MATHEMATICAL FACT. Its not an opinion, its not something to debate. Its stone cold fact.

 

I don't think you will find anyone who disagrees that any form of advantage given to the losing team is not fair on the team that is winning.

 

That is the whole point - there should be NO Substitutes, Double Points or anything else. The Sport of Speedway is about Speedway RACING and NOT about concocted Results. This is why SOME Supporters at least, are leaving the Sport. THAT is also where the Sport has a big credibility problem.

 

That's a fair argument WK and one that can be debated.

[Leicester Hunter]

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.

Personally speaking, may I say I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments voiced above.