SCB Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 But surely the rider that went down first is the primary cause so he should be excluded and had they stayed down that is what would of happened. No, they're both equally to blame if they sit/stand there. The rules only allow for impeding an opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) You are confusing facts and opinions. The fact is that Wolves won the match. My opinion is that a side scoring 46 points away from home deserved to win, ergo Wolves did not. That's my opinion - yours differs, but I don't accuse you of being deluded for that.Your opinion is irrelevant. Utterly as you are basing it on a situation where 46 points wins a meeting, it doesn't anymore. Furthermore, as I explained before, but you don't grasp/understand, hence your delusion is that sport is never a case of 'if this wasn't there, or if that hadn't of happened'. Without the tac ride, every remaining heat is different. We have no way of knowing what would have happened. As it happens, in this meeting, there were no controversial decisions, wolves scored 47, poole scored 46, hence they won, deservedly so regardless of your deluded opinion. Yes, deluded, as the only reason you are claiming it is due to the tr.... Incidentally, were you at the meeting? Edited July 22, 2015 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Lee Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 Your opinion is irrelevant. Thanks. Many people more intelligent than you don't think so. You really need to look at yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 No, they're both equally to blame if they sit/stand there. The rules only allow for impeding an opponent. But if Gomolski had stayed down it would have been re-run or awarded and the referee would have had to exclude North as a primary cause of the stoppage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Thanks. Many people more intelligent than you don't think so. You really need to look at yourself. Many? More made up nonsense. Only the trolling Drop a Cog on this thread has said anything. I've asked you a question, were you even at the meeting? If, as I suspect, you weren't you have nothing to base your assertion that Poole 'deserved' to win the meeting on other than the fact they scored 46 and in your outdated 'opinion' it means they deserved to win. I've explained precisely why that notion is outdated and delusional, you are simply unable to comprehend it and stick to your redundant ideas.. making them irrelevant. So no, I don't need to look at myself at all. Finally, as for anyone being more intelligent, you have no idea who is or isn't more intelligent and it's simply a childish retort to an argument you have long since lost. Edited July 23, 2015 by BWitcher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Lee Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Many? More made up nonsense. Only the trolling Drop a Cog on this thread has said anything. I've asked you a question, were you even at the meeting? If, as I suspect, you weren't you have nothing to base your assertion that Poole 'deserved' to win the meeting on other than the fact they scored 46 and in your outdated 'opinion' it means they deserved to win. I've explained precisely why that notion is outdated and delusional, you are simply unable to comprehend it and stick to your redundant ideas.. making them irrelevant. So no, I don't need to look at myself at all. Finally, as for anyone being more intelligent, you have no idea who is or isn't more intelligent and it's simply a childish retort to an argument you have long since lost. I can't understand why you are being so aggressive towards me. I haven't felt so persecuted since I kissed Jimmy Smith's girlfriend behind the bike sheds and he swore to get even with me one day. Hang on, you're not Jimmy Smith are you...??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TesarRacing Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 I can't understand why you are being so aggressive towards me. I haven't felt so persecuted since I kissed Jimmy Smith's girlfriend behind the bike sheds and he swore to get even with me one day. Hang on, you're not Jimmy Smith are you...??? No, but I am and if you think my wife was ever going to be attracted to you then you must be deluded!!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 I can't understand why you are being so aggressive towards me. I haven't felt so persecuted since I kissed Jimmy Smith's girlfriend behind the bike sheds and he swore to get even with me one day. Hang on, you're not Jimmy Smith are you...??? I'm not the one being aggressive. I pointed out why your 'opinion' was outdated and therefore irrelevant. You were unable to comprehend that and have since resorted to childish posts such as the above or personal insults. All of which further compound my initial statement of how irrelevant your 'opinion' is. It's clear you weren't even at the meeting, hence avoiding that question. Arrogance personified LOL! "it doesn't anymore " For every meeting you can show that 46 doesn't win a meeting I can show you 100 where it does! Several posts referring to the double points tr bollox in this thread I'm afraid. Short term memory loss or senility? AND you still don't know what deluded means, lol! As has already been stated several times, not just by me but by other posters, this debate isn't about the merits or lack thereof regarding the Tactical Ride. 46pts does not guarantee you winning a meeting. That is a bona fide fact, so using 46pts to decide whether you 'deserve' to win the meeting is delusional, as originally stated. Even more so when you the person claiming it wasn't even at the meeting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Lee Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 I'm not the one being aggressive. I pointed out why your 'opinion' was outdated and therefore irrelevant. You were unable to comprehend that and have since resorted to childish posts such as the above or personal insults. All of which further compound my initial statement of how irrelevant your 'opinion' is. It's clear you weren't even at the meeting, hence avoiding that question. As has already been stated several times, not just by me but by other posters, this debate isn't about the merits or lack thereof regarding the Tactical Ride. 46pts does not guarantee you winning a meeting. That is a bona fide fact, so using 46pts to decide whether you 'deserve' to win the meeting is delusional, as originally stated. Even more so when you the person claiming it wasn't even at the meeting. Calm down, dear. Take a deep breath and repeat slowly after me: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (Voltaire). No, but I am and if you think my wife was ever going to be attracted to you then you must be deluded!!! Didn't say she was attracted to me, just that I deluded her into kissing me.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KN1 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 But surely the rider that went down first is the primary cause so he should be excluded and had they stayed down that is what would of happened. At rye last year kyle fell and sarjeant who was a guest for Plymouth that night laid his bike down to avoid kyle. Kyle rightly ex for stopping race but sarj was also ex for not being under power when race was stopped. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 My first meeting of the season tonight, let's see if we really are as bad as it seems.Its a bit rich giving posters the 'were you there' spiel when its your first meeting of the season 3 weeks into July ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Its a bit rich giving posters the 'were you there' spiel when its your first meeting of the season 3 weeks into July ! Not at all, as at no time do I claim a team 'deserved to win' if I hadn't seen the meeting. Edited July 23, 2015 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Lee Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 I've a feeling that may have fallen on deaf ears. I'll just check...... Yep, sorry about that. Oh well, never mind. I don't think even Voltaire himself made that one stick. They locked him up in the Bastille, later commuted by a clever bit of plea bargaining to exile to England of all places. He lived in London for a while, probably supported Hackney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj350z Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Oh well, never mind. I don't think even Voltaire himself made that one stick. They locked him up in the Bastille, later commuted by a clever bit of plea bargaining to exile to England of all places. He lived in London for a while, probably supported Hackney. No it was Wimbledon as he was a bit of a 'don'!! Edited July 24, 2015 by dj350z 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Baz Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 Got all a bit confusing in heat 14 when Dakota North came down and Gomolski laid it down to avoid crashing in to him, they both got up and continued and North but North should have been excluded for the primary cause of the stoppage which he wasn't so that's a point North should have deducted and given to Gomolski. In fairness though they both got up and didn't try to stay down and get a re-run. There was no stoppage ? If we really want to be pedantic Roynan shouldn't have been awarded with third place in heat twelve, and the resultant 5-0 would have made the result a draw. The rule states, and I have checked this with a referee, that a rider must be in contact with his bike when he crosses the line. Roynan and his bike crossed the finish line in installments. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 There was no stoppage ? If we really want to be pedantic Roynan shouldn't have been awarded with third place in heat twelve, and the resultant 5-0 would have made the result a draw. The rule states, and I have checked this with a referee, that a rider must be in contact with his bike when he crosses the line. Roynan and his bike crossed the finish line in installments. I thought he had crossed the line in contact from where i was standing. My point is if one of them had stayed down North would have been excluded so he shouldn't have got the point as it was his fault Gomolski laid his bike down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Baz Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 I thought he had crossed the line in contact from where i was standing. You may have been in a better position than me as I was in the elevated terrace beyond the tapes, but he reared before the finishing line and let the bike go pretty well instantaneously. Not worth debating now as it's past, but if there was someone right on the line that could confirm to satisfy my curiosity. Maybe someone has seen a video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 24, 2015 Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 You may have been in a better position than me as I was in the elevated terrace beyond the tapes, but he reared before the finishing line and let the bike go pretty well instantaneously. Not worth debating now as it's past, but if there was someone right on the line that could confirm to satisfy my curiosity. Maybe someone has seen a video. I did mention this myself at the time to those stood with me. I was stood about a metre past the tapes and thought at the time he wasn't in contact with his bike.. he reared a fair bit before the tapes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 I did mention this myself at the time to those stood with me. I was stood about a metre past the tapes and thought at the time he wasn't in contact with his bike.. he reared a fair bit before the tapes. He wasnt in control of his bike as he crossed the line but he may have still been in contact with his bike. 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.