Crazy robin Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 The person having the final say as to which rider pulling out of a meeting can be replaced by R/R must be unbiased with no allegiance to any team and that can only be the referee. That's why only a rider crashing out in an incident for which an opponent is excluded should be covered by that rule. Okay, it can still be taken advantage of if said rider isn't actually injured but having a 'mare, but that's hard luck - don't knock opponents off their machines. I would add, though, that once replaced by R/R the rider can't take a subsequent ride. Can't see how a referee will be able to say whether a rider is suffering from a blurred vision etc as they would be in serious legal doo doo if proved wrong & a rider got injured. Lets be honest & just say the whole thing is an absoloute mess & has more holes in it that a sieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete cc Posted February 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 (edited) so let me get this right, If i get drunk, wake up with a hangover my unemployed friend can take my place, paint the foremans office red & i can go in tomorrow.Or anybody can replace anybody else when they like as long as its not cheating. Im confused & looking forward to the season after next. I think? Edited February 15, 2014 by pete cc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 I've actually learnt a lot over this winter, mainly about the speedway rule book. Especially the proposed new ones. One thing we've all asked for is a simplified rule book but when you think about it, how can it be? Nearly everyone has heard the proposed rules yet the simplified explanations given from promoters has led to us coming to very different conclusions. We've all been critical of some clubs for bending rules but the truth is, interpretation is very very difficult to govern. Half the time no rules are broken just seen differently. A simple rule explained in a simple manor can have multiple variances. This is what makes a simple sport we could put into 4 pages of rules expand into 100's. Just like last season (which was one of the first I'd properly enjoyed for some years) I avoided chasing around the rule book. It's all new this season so I'm going to do the same again. Speedway is at it's best watching back wheels being chased and seeing my team win. If the team is good enough, rules don't matter to the spectator. I can't wait for tapes up time now 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 Can't see how a referee will be able to say whether a rider is suffering from a blurred vision etc as they would be in serious legal doo doo if proved wrong & a rider got injured. Lets be honest & just say the whole thing is an absoloute mess & has more holes in it that a sieve. What I tried to say was that the referee decided, by excluding an opponent in an incident in which the 'injured' rider was involved, that any future rides can be taken by R/R if the doctor declares that rider unfit to carry on. The excluded rider's rides can't be covered by R/R should he also be declared unfit to carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 I've actually learnt a lot over this winter, mainly about the speedway rule book. Especially the proposed new ones. One thing we've all asked for is a simplified rule book but when you think about it, how can it be? Nearly everyone has heard the proposed rules yet the simplified explanations given from promoters has led to us coming to very different conclusions. We've all been critical of some clubs for bending rules but the truth is, interpretation is very very difficult to govern. Half the time no rules are broken just seen differently. A simple rule explained in a simple manor can have multiple variances. This is what makes a simple sport we could put into 4 pages of rules expand into 100's. Just like last season (which was one of the first I'd properly enjoyed for some years) I avoided chasing around the rule book. It's all new this season so I'm going to do the same again. Speedway is at it's best watching back wheels being chased and seeing my team win. If the team is good enough, rules don't matter to the spectator. I can't wait for tapes up time now Ive said for a long time, the rulebook actually is quite simple. It's about 7 pages long. The issue isn't the rulebook but how rules are ignored, bent and treated differently depending on who is asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrow boy Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 But when this idea was first suggested by a promoter it was only to apply if a top rider was unable to continue after his first ride so it could not be used as a tactic. Only an aid to a weakened team. Everybody still keeps banging on about the possibility of cheating if this is brought in. I will say again that it is muted that it will only be for a rider who is injured out in his first ride only and is unable to continue through no fault of his own. How can this be deemed to be cheating. It is purely to assist the damaged team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 Ive said for a long time, the rulebook actually is quite simple. It's about 7 pages long. The issue isn't the rulebook but how rules are ignored, bent and treated differently depending on who is asking. That's my point, rule books can not be made smaller, only expand to counteract a different interpretation. I pretty much understand the rule book but we'll have different opinions on what certain rules mean as we have in the past. We've both been right and wrong. Speedway's magic word, INTERPRETATION Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattK Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 Everybody still keeps banging on about the possibility of cheating if this is brought in. I will say again that it is muted that it will only be for a rider who is injured out in his first ride only and is unable to continue through no fault of his own. How can this be deemed to be cheating. It is purely to assist the damaged team. So if a heatleader is injured in their second ride, their two subsequent riders will have to be taken by the NL reserves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrow boy Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 So if a heatleader is injured in their second ride, their two subsequent riders will have to be taken by the NL reserves? That's how it looks and I agree it is not ideal but as nothing has been announced yet let's hope that such an idea will be extended to cover your concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy robin Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 What I tried to say was that the referee decided, by excluding an opponent in an incident in which the 'injured' rider was involved, that any future rides can be taken by R/R if the doctor declares that rider unfit to carry on. The excluded rider's rides can't be covered by R/R should he also be declared unfit to carry on. Sorry wasn't meant as a pop but was trying to say just how are they going to administer this when the track doctor was always considered to be dodgy at times at times in the past. That's how it looks and I agree it is not ideal but as nothing has been announced yet let's hope that such an idea will be extended to cover your concerns. Oh how exciting that will be then to see the NL reserves racing heat leaders in R/R rides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 Everybody still keeps banging on about the possibility of cheating if this is brought in. I will say again that it is muted that it will only be for a rider who is injured out in his first ride only and is unable to continue through no fault of his own. How can this be deemed to be cheating. It is purely to assist the damaged team. It would be quite easy ..a certain rider only having one ride and being replaced by better riders would be a massive advantage ..so it would easy how somehow could look at it as cheating . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 If the new format don't protect the NL riders from racing against the heat leaders, then why have we bothered changing the format at all. We could just carry on as usual using the tried and trusted method that has served us in the past. and stopping all the problems this has created......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrow boy Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 It would be quite easy ..a certain rider only having one ride and being replaced by better riders would be a massive advantage ..so it would easy how somehow could look at it as cheating . If say a team's top rider got wiped out by an opponent and could not carry on, why is it cheating if all his remaining rides are taken by any of his remaining team mates who are not as good. Also if say a team's 2nd or 3rd best rider is unable to continue after being injured by an opponent. Why is it cheating if all of his remaining rides are taken by riders with a lower average. After all it is the other team's fault in the first place so why should they gain an advantage. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 If say a team's top rider got wiped out by an opponent and could not carry on, why is it cheating if all his remaining rides are taken by any of his remaining team mates who are not as good. Also if say a team's 2nd or 3rd best rider is unable to continue after being injured by an opponent. Why is it cheating if all of his remaining rides are taken by riders with a lower average. After all it is the other team's fault in the first place so why should they gain an advantage. I don't he actually said it was cheating but merely pointing out that it is open to abuse. For example, let's say a #1 who doesn't particularly ride Lakeside very will is "injured" in his first ride and his subsequent rides are then taken by others in the team - all of whom ride Lakeside better than the "injured" rider. I would like to think that team's wouldn't blatently cheat - but it has happened in the past where rules are bent slightly/a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 I don't he actually said it was cheating but merely pointing out that it is open to abuse. For example, let's say a #1 who doesn't particularly ride Lakeside very will is "injured" in his first ride and his subsequent rides are then taken by others in the team - all of whom ride Lakeside better than the "injured" rider. I would like to think that team's wouldn't blatently cheat - but it has happened in the past where rules are bent slightly/a lot. Surely in that case the team would just get the rider to fske an injury before the meeting and get a guest or r/r (if rr is allowed this year).I still think this is a good rule, it jyst needs wording well to svoid manipulation. The first r/r ride should need to be taken by a rider with a lower average. I disagree with those suggesting that the facility should only be available to riders not at fsult - imagine the controversy ifctwo riders crash in the firstvheat, both ate injured but only one side gets to use r/r, and its the wrong team cos the ref makes a shocker of a decision. Also perhsps stste thst only injuries resulting or aggravated in a crash during the meeting render a rider eligible for r/r - claiming tummy ache or a sore fingernail would require replacement by reserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) I don't he actually said it was cheating but merely pointing out that it is open to abuse. For example, let's say a #1 who doesn't particularly ride Lakeside very will is "injured" in his first ride and his subsequent rides are then taken by others in the team - all of whom ride Lakeside better than the "injured" rider. I would like to think that team's wouldn't blatently cheat - but it has happened in the past where rules are bent slightly/a lot. He would have to be wiped out by a Lakeside rider first though. If that happens then fair enough. As somebody posted earlier - don't wipe the opposing riders out. Surely in that case the team would just get the rider to fske an injury before the meeting and get a guest or r/r (if rr is allowed this year). I still think this is a good rule, it jyst needs wording well to svoid manipulation. The first r/r ride should need to be taken by a rider with a lower average. I disagree with those suggesting that the facility should only be available to riders not at fsult - imagine the controversy ifctwo riders crash in the firstvheat, both ate injured but only one side gets to use r/r, and its the wrong team cos the ref makes a shocker of a decision. Also perhsps stste thst only injuries resulting or aggravated in a crash during the meeting render a rider eligible for r/r - claiming tummy ache or a sore fingernail would require replacement by reserves. That's what refs are for. They do occasionally get it wrong (but, funnily enough, it's only ever one team that complains) and somebody has to make the decisions. Edited February 17, 2014 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattK Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 There is a simple solution to this. Make teams line up in average order. Then allow any rider to be replaced at any point in the meeting, by any rider below them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 There is a simple solution to this. Make teams line up in average order. Then allow any rider to be replaced at any point in the meeting, by any rider below them. Far too sensible! Please take yourself away from this forum! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.N.T. Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Everybody still keeps banging on about the possibility of cheating if this is brought in. I will say again that it is muted that it will only be for a rider who is injured out in his first ride only and is unable to continue through no fault of his own. How can this be deemed to be cheating. It is purely to assist the damaged team. Just an example. ....... Last season Wolves struggled to relpace Ty Proctor and eventually got Robert Misk000wiak who was quite frankly dreadful. Wolves in this case could have watched RM go out in his first ride and score nothing ......... then persuade him to be ill and his rides could have then been shared by Ricky Wells, Jacob Thorssell and Ludvig Lindgren. Although to be fair, if Wolves had used R/R they would have been much better off So if a heatleader is injured in their second ride, their two subsequent riders will have to be taken by the NL reserves? Yes. So the so called "protected" reserves will be put up against the top riders. There is a simple solution to this. Make teams line up in average order. Then allow any rider to be replaced at any point in the meeting, by any rider below them. I have been saying fo sometime that they should be in average order but the example you dhow would benefit those with a rider on a modest average like Mikkel Michelsen 5.00 or Vaclav Milik 4.00 and then use them as much as they want. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattK Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 I have been saying fo sometime that they should be in average order but the example you dhow would benefit those with a rider on a modest average like Mikkel Michelsen 5.00 or Vaclav Milik 4.00 and then use them as much as they want. Obviously it would have been a good idea to agree the rules BEFORE clubs signed their riders, but beggars can't be choosers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.