orion Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) Never saw that happen. I always enjoyed the visitors top two coming out in heat 8 though. Watching Andy Smith (no. 7) beat Gundersen (no. 1?) from the back was brilliant. Ironically if the double tr bollox applied Smudger would have scored one less than Gunder the wonder. Untrue as under the double points rule Gundersen would not allowed to be put in heat 8 .only under the old rules were World Champions etc allowed to come out and take on number 7's Edited August 6, 2015 by orion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 Untrue as under the double points rule Gundersen would not allowed to be put in heat 8 .only under the old rules were World Champions etc allowed to come out and take on number 7's I don't know if the old grey matter is playing tricks or not but, in the first year (or two) of the golden double wasn't a tac sub allowed but had to start 15 metres back? I seem to recall one or two #1s refusing these rides because of the handicap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 I don't know if the old grey matter is playing tricks or not but, in the first year (or two) of the golden double wasn't a tac sub allowed but had to start 15 metres back? I seem to recall one or two #1s refusing these rides because of the handicap. Correct. In fact the golden double (as it was called then) was introduced in 1999 back in the days of the old tac sub. A great rule as the rider had to earn his double points. It seems odd saying this but I agree with DAC, the TR rule is crap and unfair. It's name is also crap, whats tactical about it? At least tac subs had us all trying to second guess what the team managers would do next! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 I think we all preferred the TAC sub rule. It's a fact it was more unfair though 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 I think we all preferred the TAC sub rule. It's a fact it was more unfair though Absolutely true. But ... then again ... More unfair to the leading side = More effective at its goal of artificially tightening matches up. Especially in a 13 heat format. That may also be why we liked it, as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) Absolutely true. But ... then again ... More unfair to the leading side = More effective at its goal of artificially tightening matches up. Especially in a 13 heat format. That may also be why we liked it, as well? Surely the tightening up or matches or changing the team that wins is the problem people have with both rules . Edited August 7, 2015 by orion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 Correct. In fact the golden double (as it was called then) was introduced in 1999 back in the days of the old tac sub. A great rule as the rider had to earn his double points. It seems odd saying this but I agree with DAC, the TR rule is crap and unfair. It's name is also crap, whats tactical about it? At least tac subs had us all trying to second guess what the team managers would do next! I don't think anyone is claiming that the TR rule is fair, both TR and TS are unfair, and it's debatable which is least unfair. The unfairness if TR rule is compounded by the 4-3-2-1.scoring system which means a team an get extra league points purely on the strength of the TR. if you take for example Lakeside v Swindon last week the TR didn't change the result of the match which Swindon would have won anyway but it did enable Swindon to get a 4 point win instead of 3 points and thus gain an extra point over BV and KL in the race for the play offs. That's just an lllustration and I know other clubs get the advantage sometimes but it doesn't help the overall fairness of the competition.. Personally I would keep the 3-2-1 home and 4-3-2-1 league point system and get rid of the TR, completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shale Searcher Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 Is there a reason why at speedway tracks the music played is so, well out of date? Lots of 1980s rock anthems and the like.... I suppose the majority of the supporters have that era as their golden era, and recognise and enjoy that more than todays "gangsta rap" type music.. Or is it something to do with "PRS" Does up to date music cost more to play over a stadium tannoy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conkers in Gravy Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 I'm not too bothered which of the tac sub and double points rules are the more or less fair statistically. I prefer the old rule which gave the impression that the team manager was doing his job, organising his resources. It was similar to a cricket captain changing the bowler or the batting order, or a football manager sending on a sub. It was part of a familiar sporting culture. The only thing you can compare the double points rule with is It's a Knockout. Double points wouldn't put me off going to speedway, I just think it's Mickey Mouse. I think it's fair to say DU has got out of hand, but you're never going to crack that nut until there's an acceptance that speedway is a sport which can support full-time riders only at the highest levels. Riders and promoters need to look at the terraces and have a reality check. Costs also have to be driven down to allow young riders easier access to the sport and to make it affordable for them to stay in the sport. I don't expect to see any of that happen soon. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 I'm not too bothered which of the tac sub and double points rules are the more or less fair statistically. I prefer the old rule which gave the impression that the team manager was doing his job, organising his resources. It was similar to a cricket captain changing the bowler or the batting order, or a football manager sending on a sub. It was part of a familiar sporting culture. The only thing you can compare the double points rule with is It's a Knockout. Double points wouldn't put me off going to speedway, I just think it's Mickey Mouse. No it's not. there is no sport where team can use a sub when the other can't when just because they are losing ...it similar to nothing . Maybe in cricket the same player should allowed to bat twice just because they are getting beat ...that is just as much mickey mouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shale Searcher Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) Comparing speedway to any other sport is wrong, like comparing football rules with rugby, Blimey, in rugby you can handle and carry the ball!! how wrong is that!!! No it's not. there is no sport where team can use a sub when the other can't when just because they are losing ...it similar to nothing . Maybe in cricket the same player should allowed to bat twice just because they are getting beat ...that is just as much mickey mouse Why should it have to be similar? That's part of speedways uniqueness! Edited August 7, 2015 by Shale Searcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 It makes you wonder why either the tactical substitute or the double tr bollox was ever brought in in the first place! To be honest I can't remember a single letter of complaint in the Star or Mail or Express or any match programme, home or away, regarding the tactical substitute rule. There must have been loads so why weren't they published? I wonder if the respective editors just regarded them as loons and effectively censored free speech in speedway, I hope not. Let's be thankful that the bsf gives those who were possibly regarded as loons the chance to have their say. Anyway, reading this thread it looks like more people preferred the tactical substitute [unreliable source?][1], it meant the top riders had more rides, it was 73% more effective than the double tr bollox [unreliable source?][2], it's replacement has got a stupid name and it fails the basic fairness test of a beaten rider actually receiving more points than the rider who won the race. I think it might be worth another try especially now we have protected heats the often trotted out heat 8 example wouldn't be available, which I think is a shame as I used to like watching the visiting no. 1 get beaten from the back y our no. 7. Speedway fans eh? A choice of two options and some of them pick the least favoured and the least effective at what it's meant to do, on the basis that it's fairer, even though a loser can get more points than the winner in the same race. The next thing we'll be reading about is some fans want to go back to having foreigners learning speedway on our tracks at reserve instead of young British lads. Lol, as if! (Footnote 1: waihekeaces1 post, 7 August 2015.) (Footnote 2: orion post, 5 August 2015.) It makes you wonder why either the tactical substitute or the double tr bollox was ever brought in in the first place! To be honest I can't remember a single letter of complaint in the Star or Mail or Express or any match programme, home or away, regarding the tactical substitute rule. There must have been loads so why weren't they published? I wonder if the respective editors just regarded them as loons and effectively censored free speech in speedway, I hope not. Let's be thankful that the bsf gives those who were possibly regarded as loons the chance to have their say. Anyway, reading this thread it looks like more people preferred the tactical substitute [unreliable source?][1], it meant the top riders had more rides, it was 73% more effective than the double tr bollox [unreliable source?][2], it's replacement has got a stupid name and it fails the basic fairness test of a beaten rider actually receiving more points than the rider who won the race. I think it might be worth another try especially now we have protected heats the often trotted out heat 8 example wouldn't be available, which I think is a shame as I used to like watching the visiting no. 1 get beaten from the back y our no. 7. Speedway fans eh? A choice of two options and some of them pick the least favoured and the least effective at what it's meant to do, on the basis that it's fairer, even though a loser can get more points than the winner in the same race. The next thing we'll be reading about is some fans want to go back to having foreigners learning speedway on our tracks at reserve instead of young British lads. Lol, as if! ? I thought everyone understood the new rule was brought it because teams could not paid the top riders the extra money for the extra rides . So you wasted a lot of time with your pointless rant . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) ? I thought everyone understood the new rule was brought it because teams could not paid the top riders the extra money for the extra rides . So you wasted a lot of time with your pointless rant . As do you, criticising anyone who doesn't agree with you. There should be NO Tactical Rides or Tactical Substitutes. If that were to be the case there would be no arguments either. Guess what - Meeting would be decided on Points scored with no fiddles. How revolutionary is that? Edited August 7, 2015 by The White Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 Surely the tightening up or matches or changing the team that wins is the problem people have with both rules . Not me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch958 Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 i must admit i never considered the old TS rule a problem and i dont recall anyone objecting to it either in the SS or anywhere i think the 'pointless rant' comment is a bit uncalled for actually - i wish we were a bit more polite on here. I include myself in that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 I don't think the TR rule is unfair to the extent that everyone knows about it before the season and each meeting starts. In addition, its likely that each team has benefitted by it and suffered from it in reasonably equal measure. It shouldn't be forgotten that speedway has had this rule in one form or another for 50 years, and there's a very good reason why it has it. I have certainly seen several meetings this season which would have been dead and buried by heat 7 without it, and no doubt if it was ditched there would be people complaining about that, too. Part of the problem is that it is unique to speedway, but any comparison with other sports just has no validity at all. When someone from football describes speedway as 'mickey mouse' (or similar) because of it, my reaction is usually to laugh at the offside rule. That's not because its ridiculous for football, but the thought of it being applied to speedway most certainly is. There's no difference. I, too, have agreed with virtually everything that Bewitcher has said on this thread but I'd take issue over cost - it is a relevant factor. I certainly don't think its a coincidence that Lakeside had their biggest attendance of the season when entry was just £5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 I, too, have agreed with virtually everything that Bewitcher has said on this thread but I'd take issue over cost - it is a relevant factor. I certainly don't think its a coincidence that Lakeside had their biggest attendance of the season when entry was just £5. Regarding the cost, perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough on it. Cost can make a big difference in occasional meetings.. it wouldn't be sustained over a longer period however. It's also relevant to the existing supporter base.. but there aren't enough of those now anyway. My point regarding the cost is, it is irrelevant to non speedway fans in the main. If they think speedway is not the place to be, it doesn't matter if its £1 or £20 they won't come. If however they think its the 'in thing' and the place to be at, they'll pay a lot more than £20 for it. That is what the sport has to try and do. Reinvent itself on the marketing side, use the reduced ticket offers on EVERY SINGLE TV meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) I don't think the TR rule is unfair to the extent that everyone knows about it before the season and each meeting starts. In addition, its likely that each team has benefitted by it and suffered from it in reasonably equal measure. It shouldn't be forgotten that speedway has had this rule in one form or another for 50 years, and there's a very good reason why it has it. I have certainly seen several meetings this season which would have been dead and buried by heat 7 without it, and no doubt if it was ditched there would be people complaining about that, too. Part of the problem is that it is unique to speedway, but any comparison with other sports just has no validity at all. When someone from football describes speedway as 'mickey mouse' (or similar) because of it, my reaction is usually to laugh at the offside rule. That's not because its ridiculous for football, but the thought of it being applied to speedway most certainly is. There's no difference. I, too, have agreed with virtually everything that Bewitcher has said on this thread but I'd take issue over cost - it is a relevant factor. I certainly don't think its a coincidence that Lakeside had their biggest attendance of the season when entry was just £5. How about a T/R has to have at least one opposing rider behind him to score the double points? Edited August 7, 2015 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 i must admit i never considered the old TS rule a problem and i dont recall anyone objecting to it either in the SS or anywhere i think the 'pointless rant' comment is a bit uncalled for actually - i wish we were a bit more polite on here. I include myself in that You don't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted August 7, 2015 Report Share Posted August 7, 2015 Just had interview for a job and when asked about hobbies I said speedway and he said that used to be really popular what happened? I just said we avnt got time to go into it! 1 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.