Rule Changes For 2014

[oldace]

Have you been on the sherry this afternoon!!!!!

 

Thats the point I was making and you were arguing with me a while back, now you are posting links to back up my point

 

 

 

 

No, that's what the Daily Mail is saying

 

Thats a yes then

[Grachan]

 

It has neither helped, nor hindered. It is totally insignificant in speedways slow demise.

 

I don't agree with that. There was a notable amount of people extremely fed up with the doublepoints. that well used phrse "mickey Mouse" came into play quite a lot. It was definitely one in a long line of things that served to annoy many people, and people don't pay to go somewhere that annoys them.

[TwoMinuteWarning]

 

 

 

But speedway in Poland is watched by Poles living in Poland, working in Poland, earning a Polish type salary. Like I said speedway in Poland is now far more expensive than here.

 

Your original statement remains incorrect.

After you amended it to reflect relevant earnings, then I agreed with you.

Simple.

KEEP CALM

 

[BWitcher]

 

 

THAT is an opinion - NOT a provable fact BW.

 

My opinion differs from yours.

 

Whilst not being totally responsible for Speedway's downfall in popularity - there is NO WAY that you can argue that this Double Points rubbish has helped the situation.

 

Well based on a far unfairer system not causing any issues for years, I'd say it's not a major issue.

 

Based on the fact that speedway had lost most of its crowd before it was introduced, I'd say it's not a major issue.

[Grachan]

Well based on a far unfairer system not causing any issues for years, I'd say it's not a major issue.

 

Based on the fact that speedway had lost most of its crowd before it was introduced, I'd say it's not a major issue.

 

The thing with it was the whole "double points" thing, rather than the fairness. People just couldn't, and still can't, get heir heads round that. You win the race and get 6 points instead of 3 - it was too much for many people.

[BWitcher]

 

 

The thing with it was the whole "double points" thing, rather than the fairness. People just couldn't, and still can't, get heir heads round that. You win the race and get 6 points instead of 3 - it was too much for many people.

 

Hardly anyone, even on these forums has ever said that. In 90%+ of the posts about it, the 'unfairness' is the first thing they mention.

 

I still don't buy that is a reason why people wouldn't go to a meeting. The sport had lost a massive % of its fan base before double pts rides were ever introduced.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2013 by BWitcher

[E I Addio]

The thing with it was the whole "double points" thing, rather than the fairness. People just couldn't, and still can't, get heir heads round that. You win the race and get 6 points instead of 3 - it was too much for many people.

 

I agree. I accept that mathematically the tactical substitute rule can be shown to be more unfair, but to the average punter who doesn't stand at the trackside with a calculator the perception of a team getting an 8-1 instead of a 5-1 is unfair.

 

I think the point that most people are missing is that the point of the old tac sub rule and also the tac ride in its early days was to maintain interest in a meeting when one team was gaining a big lead. However in those days it was basically a straight win or lose but now we have interest created by a team needing to win by 6 or more to get 3 league points and a team who loses by 6 still get something out of it. This means that effectively a team have to get 13 points ahead (allowing for t/r's) to be sure of getting all three point. With the present system of league points(which I am in favour of, surely the time has come to dump the tac ride/tac sub for once and for all.

[BWitcher]

I'm quite sure to the 'average punter', being able to replace your worst rider with your best rider (when the other team can't) is quite unfair too.

[TheReturn]

The old system was the most unfair of all, by quite some way.

 

But you have not explained why you think it was unfair.

[BWitcher]

 

 

But you have not explained why you think it was unfair.

 

I have no problem with tac subs/rides etc. I actually feel they enhance the meeting rather than have this damaging negative effect which some allude too.

 

However, all of the systems can be deemed 'unfair' to the team that is winning. The key here being 'ALL' the systems, not just the current one as some folk continue to try to do. Under the old tac sub system, you only had to fall 6pts behind and you could then replace one of your weaker riders with one of your best riders. More often than not this meant replacing one of your reserves, who was likely to finish last, with a rider likely to win the race. You are gaining more than 3pts here as you are also reducing your opponents too.

 

You also of course had the option of putting in a Double Tac sub, which could turn a potential 1-5 against heat to a 5-1 for heat, giving an even bigger pts swing.

 

Throw in the fact you could use 3 such tactical sub rides and it made it far far harder than it is now for the winning team.

 

You surely know this anyway, so quite why you require an 'explanation' I don't know.

[The White Knight]

I have no problem with tac subs/rides etc. I actually feel they enhance the meeting rather than have this damaging negative effect which some allude too.

 

However, all of the systems can be deemed 'unfair' to the team that is winning. The key here being 'ALL' the systems, not just the current one as some folk continue to try to do. Under the old tac sub system, you only had to fall 6pts behind and you could then replace one of your weaker riders with one of your best riders. More often than not this meant replacing one of your reserves, who was likely to finish last, with a rider likely to win the race. You are gaining more than 3pts here as you are also reducing your opponents too.

 

You also of course had the option of putting in a Double Tac sub, which could turn a potential 1-5 against heat to a 5-1 for heat, giving an even bigger pts swing.

 

Throw in the fact you could use 3 such tactical sub rides and it made it far far harder than it is now for the winning team.

 

You surely know this anyway, so quite why you require an 'explanation' I don't know.

 

You know my views on this BW.

 

I don't want ANY Tactical Double Rides or Tactical Substitutes at all. I want ALL Races to proceed as per Programme (obviously Rider Order may be changed because of injury) and if a Team is in for a hammering - it will get one. I don't want to see undeserving Teams winning due to any Tactical contrivances that should not be what our Sport is about.

 

Four Riders, 13/15 Heats, Scores added up at the end of the Meeting and the Team with the most Points is the Winner.

 

WHAT IS SO VERY WRONG WITH THAT?

[E I Addio]

I'm quite sure to the 'average punter', being able to replace your worst rider with your best rider (when the other team can't) is quite unfair too.

Agreed, but the point being made was that although the tac ride is mathematically fairer than the tac sub, it is still perceived as being unfairer because a team appear to make up 7 points (on what would otherwise be a 5-1) rather than 4 points. More important though is the present system of league points which is a far more effective way of maintain interest and , to my mid at least, makes the tac ride/tac sub redundant.

 

The whole t/r t/s thing is an unnecessary complication to what should be a simple sport to follow.

[Cockney Rebel]

Don't particularly like any type of tactical substitute whatever you call it, tac sub, tactical ride, joker etc. If a team works hard to get itself a lead why should the oposition be given a chance to pull it back by using a better rider, double points etc. All these tactical rides favour the top heavy teams. If a team like Birmingham, strength in depth but no star rider, manage to build a lead over a team like Wolves or Poole ( Prior to Holder's injury) then all credit to them. In my opinion it's wrong for said opposition to get an extra three points in one race just because they're behind. Promoters have a choice at the beggining of the season to build a top heavy side or a side with strength in depth. It isn't right to say "our top two are better than yours so we can have extra points". Having said that I doesn't put me off from going, coz I like watching the racing.

 

Just to be pedantic all teams have three heat leaders they just may not be the same quality.

[BWitcher]

 

 

You know my views on this BW.

 

I don't want ANY Tactical Double Rides or Tactical Substitutes at all. I want ALL Races to proceed as per Programme (obviously Rider Order may be changed because of injury) and if a Team is in for a hammering - it will get one. I don't want to see undeserving Teams winning due to any Tactical contrivances that should not be what our Sport is about.

 

Four Riders, 13/15 Heats, Scores added up at the end of the Meeting and the Team with the most Points is the Winner.

 

WHAT IS SO VERY WRONG WITH THAT?

 

Nothing wrong with that WK.

[cowboy cookie returns?]

Simple really. Old tac sub rule 6 points or more down after 6 heats then you can use it any rider can take one tac sub ride. The team manager can programme his top 5 in any order he likes those two changes would mean that the team manager would have to manage & get the best out of his team like the old days.

[TheReturn]

I have no problem with tac subs/rides etc. I actually feel they enhance the meeting rather than have this damaging negative effect which some allude too.

 

However, all of the systems can be deemed 'unfair' to the team that is winning. The key here being 'ALL' the systems, not just the current one as some folk continue to try to do. Under the old tac sub system, you only had to fall 6pts behind and you could then replace one of your weaker riders with one of your best riders. More often than not this meant replacing one of your reserves, who was likely to finish last, with a rider likely to win the race. You are gaining more than 3pts here as you are also reducing your opponents too.

 

You also of course had the option of putting in a Double Tac sub, which could turn a potential 1-5 against heat to a 5-1 for heat, giving an even bigger pts swing.

 

Throw in the fact you could use 3 such tactical sub rides and it made it far far harder than it is now for the winning team.

 

You surely know this anyway, so quite why you require an 'explanation' I don't know.

 

Ref your last line... a forum is about opinions, and debate and I was imply intrigued what your opinion was about the old tactical rule as I had never heard anyone complain about it before.... So don't be so arsey!

 

Now, on to your explanation above the last line, thank you for sharing. Like you I have no problem with a tactical sub ride, my own view is that the system is fairer when the substitute can only score the same amount of points as the original rider, so for me the double tactical sub rule is the unfairer of the two. Perhaps it needed tweaking to make the deficit needed for a tactical sub to 8 points rather than 6 to be a tad fairer or even that only the next two riders with higher averages are allowed to take the substitute ride.

 

But my belief was the old rule was slightly fairer than the existing double points rule, where one race win can be worth 6 points when the original rider could have only scored a maximum of 3.... IMO

[BWitcher]

 

 

Ref your last line... a forum is about opinions, and debate and I was imply intrigued what your opinion was about the old tactical rule as I had never heard anyone complain about it before.... So don't be so arsey!

 

Now, on to your explanation above the last line, thank you for sharing. Like you I have no problem with a tactical sub ride, my own view is that the system is fairer when the substitute can only score the same amount of points as the original rider, so for me the double tactical sub rule is the unfairer of the two. Perhaps it needed tweaking to make the deficit needed for a tactical sub to 8 points rather than 6 to be a tad fairer or even that only the next two riders with higher averages are allowed to take the substitute ride.

 

But my belief was the old rule was slightly fairer than the existing double points rule, where one race win can be worth 6 points when the original rider could have only scored a maximum of 3.... IMO

 

Here we go again.

 

This isn't an opinion, it is a FACT. The old tac sub rule was more unfair, it is indisputable. Nor is it even close.

Edited July 8, 2013 by BWitcher

[stratton]

For every team with 7 heatleaders, there must have been two teams with 1. I bet them match ups were great!

Its called team building and Cradley for a spell were masters at it.Riders like Erik, Penhall,Pedersen,King,Ravn(who they improved)Cross,Wigg they were not all stars at the start Cradley always had good sides in the 80s.Funny thing is i always thought in the early 70s some of there sides were poor McCormick and Adams had a massive say in there success.

[stratton]

I'm quite sure to the 'average punter', being able to replace your worst rider with your best rider (when the other team can't) is quite unfair too.

But often when the tac rule was used,it was not always the weakest rider that was replaced.I thought there was more man management then and as others have pointed out people like Varey,Oliver,Fearman,Adams,Oakes were ahead of the game in many ways and won matches because of it. Edited July 8, 2013 by sidney

[BWitcher]

But often when the tac rule was used,it was not always the weakest rider that was replaced.I thought there was more man management then and as others have pointed out people like Varey,Oliver,Fearman,Adams,Oakes were ahead of the game in many ways and won matches because of it.

 

Not disputing that, but you're defeating the argument there aren't you. You're admitting it was much easier to manipulate meetings so the weaker team won.

 

I preferred the old rule Sidney, same as you do I'm sure. I'm not naïve enough to think it was in anyway fairer though.

Edited July 8, 2013 by BWitcher