foreverblue Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) If Coventry get anyone the chances are most fans will be underwhelmed by the replacement, Horton will not break the bank for a couple of play off meetings. Edited September 8, 2015 by foreverblue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Speedway fans make me laugh. If they don't like something, "it shouldn't be allowed". How about what is allowed? The rules allow Coventry to replace Joonas, so thats what our management will hopefully be doing. Nothing in the rule book says "like for like" or "up to the replaced riders average" or anything like that. What I read was that changes could not be made after the cutoff unless it was for a season ending injury. To me that implies you can only replace a rider like for like or you would be making changes after the cutoff date. We will soon find out who is right if/when Coventry make an announcement. It matters not anyway as Poole will win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdmc82 Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 No one can sign anyone now August 28th was the last day anyone could sign anyone. There has been a 7 day injury replacement rule that was announced at the start of the season for play off teams I agree - anything else and they are strengthening the team which shouldn't be allowed. If they wanted to strengthen, they should have done it before the cutoff. So a rider up to JK's average then. Without rolling averages, JK was averaging 7.33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 If Coventry get anyone the chances are most fans will be underwhelmed by the replacement, Horton will not break the bank for a couple of play off meetings. Certainly not to take away any profit he MAY make.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I understand from someone connected to the SCB that the 'Play-off injury replacement' rule was intended for a rider getting injured just as the team go into the play-offs. It wasn't intended to be used for an injured rider for whom a 'replacement facility' in earlier league meetings had already been utilised!! However, intention is not always conveyed in the way the rule is written, even though the BSPA MC will be aware of the 'intention' and presumably take that into account when either approving or otherwise any signing or guest?! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I understand from someone connected to the SCB that the 'Play-off injury replacement' rule was intended for a rider getting injured just as the team go into the play-offs. It wasn't intended to be used for an injured rider for whom a 'replacement facility' in earlier league meetings had already been utilised!! However, intention is not always conveyed in the way the rule is written, even though the BSPA MC will be aware of the 'intention' and presumably take that into account when either approving or otherwise any signing or guest?! Presumably it would mean for someone injured after the deadline for making new signings ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Presumably it would mean for someone injured after the deadline for making new signings ended. That sounds sensible and may have been the intention but it should be how the rule appears in the rule book that matters. If the people drafting it can't convey exactly what was intended then they have only themselves to blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poole Quay 7 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Bring who you like: Poole Speedway will beat you!.....We are galvanised and ready to see off the pretenders We are POOLE SPEEDWAY and certainly reardy Do YOU want to bet against Poole? Edited September 9, 2015 by Poole Quay 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game On Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Bring who you like: Poole Speedway will beat you!.....We are galvanised and ready to see off the pretenders We are POOLE SPEEDWAY and certainly reardy Do YOU want to bet against set Poole? Try spell check! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poole Quay 7 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Try spell check! regardless of any pedantic point scoring , still asking will you bet against Poole winning?..... Come on "Game on" as you are you are suggesting give us the answer or as per usual like most Coventry fans and team who actually go missing when it really matters? ...NO SURPRISES Coventry Speedway.....They actually carry a bag of King Edwards on each shoulder....................Just wait and see the and see the usual windbags huff and puff Edited September 9, 2015 by Poole Quay 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game On Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 regardless of any pedantic point scoring , still asking will yo bet against Poole winning?..... Come on "Game " as you are suggesting give us the answer or as per usual... Ignoring Coventry Speedway.....They actually carry a bag of King Edwards on each shoulder....................Just wait and see the replys I'm not so stupid as to bet against Poole over the two legs as I believe they will win comfortably by at least 16-20 point margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 That sounds sensible and may have been the intention but it should be how the rule appears in the rule book that matters. If the people drafting it can't convey exactly what was intended then they have only themselves to blame. Yes but the rules are for the members of the BSPA ie the promoters!! so there should be no misunderstandings for them even if the fans can make their own interpretations!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishRoundabout Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Bring who you like: Poole Speedway will beat you!.....We are galvanised and ready to see off the pretenders We are POOLE SPEEDWAY and certainly reardy Do YOU want to bet against Poole? This isn't the best Poole side of more recent times, but it's good enough to win this league. Over two legs, a very difficult side to beat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'm not so stupid as to bet against Poole over the two legs as I believe they will win comfortably by at least 16-20 point margin. And we are not so stupid as to take the opposition for granted. Believe me. I understand from someone connected to the SCB that the 'Play-off injury replacement' rule was intended for a rider getting injured just as the team go into the play-offs. It wasn't intended to be used for an injured rider for whom a 'replacement facility' in earlier league meetings had already been utilised!! However, intention is not always conveyed in the way the rule is written, even though the BSPA MC will be aware of the 'intention' and presumably take that into account when either approving or otherwise any signing or guest?! Preferably the guest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Yes but the rules are for the members of the BSPA ie the promoters!! so there should be no misunderstandings for them even if the fans can make their own interpretations!! I see the smiley but the rules should only be interpreted within the confines of what the rule says. You cannot reasonably say we intended it to mean only a like for like replacement, rather than the normal up to the 34 points limit, if the rule does not state that. Remember they are SCB rules not BSPA rules and the SCB deal with any appeals and then the ACU are the final arbiters. Edited September 9, 2015 by Aces51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I see the smiley but the rules should only be interpreted within the confines of what the rule says. You cannot reasonably say we intended it to mean only a like for like replacement, rather than the normal up to the 34 points limit, if the rule does not state that. Remember they are SCB rules not BSPA rules and the SCB deal with any appeals and then the ACU are the final arbiters. Oh just save the hassle and bring in a guest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I understand that but it was the BSPA members that discussed it (presumably?) at the AGM before submitting the rules for approval (rubber-stamping) by SCB, so the BSPA members would have been aware of the intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I see the smiley but the rules should only be interpreted within the confines of what the rule says. You cannot reasonably say we intended it to mean only a like for like replacement, rather than the normal up to the 34 points limit, if the rule does not state that. Remember they are SCB rules not BSPA rules and the SCB deal with any appeals and then the ACU are the final arbiters. Yes you can reasonably say it was intended as a like for like replacement! The rules say that there is a cut off where changes cannot be made - that date has passed. Therefore, for an injury replacement, it should be a like for like - otherwise you are effectively strengthening after the cut off date - which isn't allowed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I understand that but it was the BSPA members that discussed it (presumably?) at the AGM before submitting the rules for approval (rubber-stamping) by SCB, so the BSPA members would have been aware of the intent.They probably never thought that a team could make the play-offs and still be 1.5 points under the limit. Understandably! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy robin Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 They probably never thought that a team could make the play-offs and still be 1.5 points under the limit. Understandably! They wouldn't be if it wasn't for Garrity😀 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.