Poole Quay 7 Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 Except perhaps the Elite League Speedway team... the most succesful Elite League speedway team in the country. I wouldn't bother replying to this posters predictable and continual wind-up references to Poole " Choking " On reflection, It might help if he looked closer to home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 Apparantly there has been a new supplementary rule added to the regs only regarding those riders who did not ride in 2014 - to "overcome any confusion"?? It seems there is an amendment but it doesn't explain what :/ http://scbgb.co.uk/regulations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagpuss Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 I wouldn't bother replying to this posters predictable and continual wind-up references to Poole " Choking " On reflection, It might help if he looked closer to home I really can't believe that anyone is daft enough to bite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 It seems there is an amendment but it doesn't explain what :/ http://scbgb.co.uk/regulations This has to be one of the most poorly written sentences I've ever encountered in an official document - looks like they got Sid to do the punctuation! Exceptionally this rule is amended in order to permit the calculation of MA’s to incorporate a slight system variation be issued for May only to be effective from 5th May 2015, Instead of being effective from 1st May, for Riders affected by the change. On first reading I thought the change meant that averages were effective only from 5th May rather than 1st (and that was the only change), but you are right in that it appears there is an undisclosed variation to the calculation method.It's also unclear in the subsequent paragraphs whther the calculation method revers to the original one for subsequent months, or just the fact that new averages will become effective on the 1st of each month (I assume it's the latter) I wonder what on earth the "slight system variation" is? The rule also says that it recerts from the next set of average, but does that mean the calculation method reverts to the original one, or purely that averages become effective on the 1st of the month? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 As stated earlier, it affects the rolling average of any rider that didn't ride in 2014 (the rule had stated that the 20 meeting average would be calculated only on 2015/2014 scores) but rode in 2013. In Poole's case, as an example, it affects only Gomolski whose new average (4.67) came into effect yesterday 5/5/15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 As stated earlier, it affects the rolling average of any rider that didn't ride in 2014 (the rule had stated that the 20 meeting average would be calculated only on 2015/2014 scores) but rode in 2013. In Poole's case, as an example, it affects only Gomolski whose new average (4.67) came into effect yesterday 5/5/15. We know who it effects but how? Do they now roll from 2013? Or something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 We know who it effects but how? Do they now roll from 2013? Or something else? Yes it includes 2013 scores according to Poole's webmaster/PR. It affects Freddie Lindgren too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 We know who it effects but how? Do they now roll from 2013? Or something else?but any rider who rode in 2014 (however briefly) doesnt seem to be included.This means Stefan Nielsen in the PL for example who had just 11 qualifying rides has an average that doesnt include 2013 despite this leaving him 11 matches short of the 20. Also in 2 of the 9 that are used he only had a single ride! Surely if you are to include 2013 for any rider it sholud be used for all (if needed to make 20) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) Yes it includes 2013 scores according to Poole's webmaster/PR. It affects Freddie Lindgren too. So what about Danny King? Had about 10 meeting from 14 and 15. Surely it should now include 10 meetings from 13 too?! How odd! edit> I see I'm not the first to comment on this madness! edit 2> They've not updated Robbos average either. edit 3 > Also means Chris Holder has a rolling average, they've got his average wrong now too. Edited May 6, 2015 by SCB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Panda Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 So how will we be fitting Darcy in? Who says that when he comes back Darcy will be at Poole...............he could do with a spell away to be honest............think it would do him good.............. RP 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 Who says that when he comes back Darcy will be at Poole...............he could do with a spell away to be honest............think it would do him good.............. RP The only rider he could replace is Janowski and only if his average goes up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) The only rider he could replace is Janowski and only if his average goes up I think that this is due to happen in the undoubted 'June' supplementary regulation... To prevent any further 'confusion' obviously. !!!! Edited May 7, 2015 by mikebv 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 So what about Danny King? Had about 10 meeting from 14 and 15. Surely it should now include 10 meetings from 13 too?! How odd! edit> I see I'm not the first to comment on this madness! edit 2> They've not updated Robbos average either. edit 3 > Also means Chris Holder has a rolling average, they've got his average wrong now too. Its for riders who didn't ride at all in 2014 - not those that didn't ride enough meetings! He will be back at Poole. He's had a spell away He's having his first practice on Sunday, he tweeted earlier. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 Its for riders who didn't ride at all in 2014 - not those that didn't ride enough meetings! any rule if it applies to one rider SHOULD apply then to ALL riders.If its so important to have 20 meeting rolling averages for those 2014 absentees then the same should apply to those that only rode a handful. Consistency is vital for a level playing field. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 any rule if it applies to one rider SHOULD apply then to ALL riders. If its so important to have 20 meeting rolling averages for those 2014 absentees then the same should apply to those that only rode a handful. Consistency is vital for a level playing field. totally agree, either you use 2013 meeting or you don't. Personally, I see no reason why you don't. If a riders average goes back to 2012 and 2011 you should use them too - it's really not hard (I know this because I could produce you rolling averages over any number of meetings you like including or excluding any season you like in about a minute - 30 seconds of that is waiting for program to open! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudflaps Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 Darcy back to Poole ! good luck to Poole! I love the way that Holder has been very subtly been reducing his GSA to help Matt Fraud achieve this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 I love the way that Holder has been very subtly been reducing his GSA to help Matt Fraud achieve this... You're right, them 2 points dropped last night.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) You're right, them 2 points dropped last night.... He is definately coming back to form, maybe not at his best yet and wouldn't judge it purely on two meetings against Wolves but he is riding much better now, if Ward is to come back then it would have to be for Janowski. Edited May 7, 2015 by foreverblue 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdmc82 Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 Darcy back to Poole ! good luck to Poole! I love the way that Holder has been very subtly been reducing his GSA to help Matt Fraud achieve this... Holder wasn't thinking about his average last night. Couple of points will be added on to Kacper's average as well now it's not assessed. Even if some of the riders drop a bit off their averages, it would still have to be two riders leaving Poole to fit Darcy in or as a replacement for Magic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 Holder wasn't thinking about his average last night. Couple of points will be added on to Kacper's average as well now it's not assessed. Even if some of the riders drop a bit off their averages, it would still have to be two riders leaving Poole to fit Darcy in or as a replacement for Magic. ...or 3?! Poole have consecutive away meetings to get averages further reduced if they so wish! 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.