Race Off 31/7

[Fromafar]

Hancock has a superb riding style ,smooth as silk going faster that Ward and Co without hanging off a bucking bronco.Tai is in the same mould as Hancock IMO smooth as silk on the bike. Greg has few years left in him yet judging by what we are watching.

[phillipsr]

Greg is a great rider no doubt but he is still as dull as dishwater to watch IMO. Wait to be told i have no idea about speedway as i dont have the same opinion as some on here.

[Tabashir]

I have a lot of sympathy with Jim Lawrence's decision.

To the point that he didn't stop the race, well it is in the rules that a rider can be excluded for dangerous riding after the race. The fact that the rule is exercised rarely should not be a reason to ignore it's existence when it is appropriate to apply it.

Taking whether the decision itself was wrong out of the equation for a second, if, as Lawrence did, you believe the rider was dangerous, surely it would have been the most equitable thing for the teams to have let it run? The rider in first had done the hard work so why should he be penalised for something that happened behind him? How many times have you all seen a re-run and the rider having done nothing wrong in the first place loses it second time round. For me, it always takes some the shine off that race if that happens, yes, even if the team I'm rooting for benefits, although maybe then a little less so!

In a non televised meet, the decision has to be made split second as there are no replays available. Surely with the technology available in that meeting, it was better to let it run, particularly as it was nearly the end of the race, and analyse the result after. Not sure this will really open the can of worms for most regular speedway meets as there will be no replays available. To those that say it will drag the meetings out, surely not having a re-run with several minutes of pit time then gardening and general messing about would make the meetings quicker? Of course it would rob the fans of a couple of extra laps of racing.

I thought the same as a couple of others on here that in the previous incident Nilsson had more (admittedly not a lot) room to shut off and that come Krchmar's turn, had he tried to shut off at the time Nilsson came across him, his bike would have straightened and he would have accelerated and really had nowhere to go and the fact that he was slammed into the fence as opposed to nudged in the previous incident was the deciding factor as to what counted as 'dangerous'.

However, since I've never been on a speedway bike, I'll defer to those who have been as far as whether Krchmar could or should have shut off.

I still think it was a courageous, even if ultimately incorrect, decision. There has been discussion on the spat between Nicki and Greg/Tai/Noddy before. They were wanting a stance on dangerous riding and this may have been the first attempt at starting down that route. Yes, it's not a knitting circle, but I for one don't go to speedway to see someone off in an ambulance either.

There is a line between hard and dangerous and it's the Ref's job to call that. Sometimes they may may get it wrong. Doesn't mean they should never call it. The fact that it's out there now that they may start to call it a little more often means we may just see a little more passing and less fencing I hope.

[SCB]

I have a lot of sympathy with Jim Lawrence's decision.

 

To the point that he didn't stop the race, well it is in the rules that a rider can be excluded for dangerous riding after the race. The fact that the rule is exercised rarely should not be a reason to ignore it's existence when it is appropriate to apply it.

Where is it in the rules that a rider can be retrospectively excluded for dangers riding? The only rule I can find says,

"070.10.13 Foul or dangerous riding

The Referee shall immediately disqualify any rider team whom he considers

indulges in foul, unfair or dangerous riding.

A rider, who, having started in a heat does not make an honest attempt to ride

to the best of their ability, as judged by the Referee, shall be guilty of an offence,

which may entail disqualification from the heat or a penalty.

There shall be no protest or appeal against a Referee's decision to declare a heat

completed or as to his statement of foul, unfair or dangerous riding.

If, in the opinion of the Referee, such conduct produces an advantage to the rider

(or team) involved or affects the chances of one or more riders, the Referee may

stop the heat and order a re-run.

If any rider is unable to cross the finish line as a result of foul, unfair or dangerous

riding on the part of another rider who, in consequence, has been disqualified,

the disadvantaged rider shall be deemed to have finished the heat in the placing

held immediately before the foul, unfair or dangerous riding and allowing for any

advancement in placing following the disqualification of the guilty rider.

A similar system shall apply for a rider/sidecar team who, in the opinion of the

Referee, has deliberately laid down his machine or has left the course in the

interest of safety."

[Tabashir]

I take your point SCB. We come now to the exceedingly grey area of interpretation. "Immediately" itself seems a pretty black and white word. However, the question becomes:

"Is it immediate from the point in time of the offence itself or immediate from the point in time that the ref determines it is an offence?"

Most commonly, these rules are used with no replays available, so the 2 points in time basically are the same. However, when replays are available, the two may vary. In this case it could be argued that after watching the replay, he determined it was an offence and immediately excluded him. To my mind, when the technology is available to improve decision making, then I'd like to see it used as it reduces the chance of injustice but I can see that others may disagree for a variety of reasons. Either way, there should be some claification by the authorities.

The assertion in my original post, however was based further down in your quote, namely that:

"If, in the opinion of the Referee, such conduct produces an advantage to the rider (or team) involved or affects the chances of one or more riders, the Referee *may* stop the heat and order a re-run."

I added the emphasis around the word "may". The point being, that the ref does not have to stop the heat, he can at his discression let it run. Maybe I've read it wrong, but that was my interpretation.