Fozzie4388 Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 As of Monday June 13th Belle Vue Heat Leaders: Zagar, Steve Worrall, CookSecond Stringers: Nicholls, Fricke Reserves: Richie Worrall, Jacobs Coventry HL: Kasprzak, Harris, King SS: Garrity, Sarjeant R: Woryna, Bates Kings Lynn HL: Iversen, Korneliussen, Batchelor SS: Lambert, RoseR: Wilkinson, Huckenbeck Lakeside HL: Jonsson, Nilsson, Lawson SS: Kennett, Bridger R: Kerr, Mear Leicester HL: Hougaard, Klindt, WozniakSS: Watt, Starke R: Summers, Auty Poole HL: Andersen, Holder, Buczkowski SS: Ellis, Kurtz R: Pedersen, Newman Swindon HL: Doyle, Morris, Grajczonek SS: Sedgmen, Tungate R: Wright, Nielsen Wolves HL: Lindgren, Kylmakorpi, ThorssellSS: Masters, Karlsson R: Howarth, Clegg 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 As of Monday June 13th Kings Lynn HL: Iversen, Korneliussen, Batchelor SS: Lambert, Rose R: Wilkinson, Huckenbeck Not sure Huckenbeck can be at reserve as isn't he still a number 9 who can only replace a 1-5 rider? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 Not sure Huckenbeck can be at reserve as isn't he still a number 9 who can only replace a 1-5 rider? He's the #8, NBJ is currently in the 1-5 at #6. Yes, really, that's how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 Not sure Huckenbeck can be at reserve as isn't he still a number 9 who can only replace a 1-5 rider?IircScb debated this and his view is that huckenbeck shouldn't be able to replace nbj at reserve. The official line seems to be that huckenbeck would ride in the 1-5 and rose would drop to reserve. I think. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 What I said was Huckenbech CANT replace nbj while nbj is in reserve. Somehow the BSPA have decided he can replace him and ride one the 2-5 though -incorrectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 I thought that's what I said u said. At least it's what I meant to say you said! Seriously how hard is it to phrase rules correctly. If the interpretation they are adopting is what they wanted, why not state that in the rules. And tbh why not allow a number 8 to ride at reserve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted June 8, 2016 Report Share Posted June 8, 2016 Iirc Scb debated this and his view is that huckenbeck shouldn't be able to replace nbj at reserve. The official line seems to be that huckenbeck would ride in the 1-5 and rose would drop to reserve. I think. That was my thinking , no doubt the BSPA will twist the ruling to suit as per usual. But my reading was that he was signed at number 8 for cover any absent 1-5 member or ride in the main body himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 The BSPA issue 16 averages don't show Huckenbeck at reserve. His average is shown seperately (ie outside of the 1-7) and correctly as their No.8. The reserves will be Wilkinson and presumably S.Lambert or a guest to replace NBJ. What I said was Huckenbech CANT replace nbj while nbj is in reserve. Somehow the BSPA have decided he can replace him and ride one the 2-5 though -incorrectly. The BSPA haven't said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 I thought that's what I said u said. At least it's what I meant to say you said! Seriously how hard is it to phrase rules correctly. If the interpretation they are adopting is what they wanted, why not state that in the rules. And tbh why not allow a number 8 to ride at reserve? The issues is, what is a "1-5 rider"? a rider riding in the 1-5? Or a rider who is not an EDR? So can replace an "1-5" rider is can replace someone not an EDR but can only ride in the 1-5 is literally ride in the 1-5. But thats not what the rules says. The BSPA haven't said that. So how to you explain..... http://speedway-stats.co.uk/Meeting/2493 Carl Wilkinson had a 4.5(ish) averages, busk-jakobsen about 4.1 and Huckenbeck 4.00 but Huckenbeck, replaicng Busk-Jakobsen rode in the 1-5 despite the fact he was replacing a rider in reserve and his average would have put him in reserve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 The phrase 1-5 rider should simply be defined in the rule book. Tbh if they meant a non edr they should have just said "any non edr". If they meant 1-5 by riding order they should have said in the 1-5 position based on current Greenstreet averages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 The issues is, what is a "1-5 rider"? a rider riding in the 1-5? Or a rider who is not an EDR? So can replace an "1-5" rider is can replace someone not an EDR but can only ride in the 1-5 is literally ride in the 1-5. But thats not what the rules says. So how to you explain..... http://speedway-stats.co.uk/Meeting/2493 Carl Wilkinson had a 4.5(ish) averages, busk-jakobsen about 4.1 and Huckenbeck 4.00 but Huckenbeck, replaicng Busk-Jakobsen rode in the 1-5 despite the fact he was replacing a rider in reserve and his average would have put him in reserve Rob Lyon in the May 18th programme: "We have a slightly weird situation elsewhere in the team where Carl Wilkinson is in the top 5 on averages, with NBJ at reserve as he's still on his assessed average. I asked about how we therefore use Kai, because he can't replace an EDR rider, and I've been informed that we have to position Kai in the top 5 on his 4.00 assessed average, with Wilko at reserve. It's all very confusing and complicated... " Irrespective of the definition of a 1-5 rider, with the exception of 1 EDR having to be at #7, the team "must" (repeated 3 times) line up in MA order, which the above scenario completely ignores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 Regardless of what is being interpreted in the rule book, logic should have been 'no assessed riders unless already an EDR can ride at reserve'. The wording of the rulebook is terrible. 17.4.1.1 A declared #8, can be used as a replacement at any time for a #1 to #5 Team Member by the looks of how thing's are working, it should read: 17.4.1.1 A declared #8, can be used as a replacement at any time for a non EDR but must ride in the #1 to #5 team positions. _______________________________ as an aside hypothetical question say: Huckenbeck is a 4.00 assessed average Korneliussen drops to a 3.00 average The current 1-7 team is averaging 44.00 Is it right that Huckenbeck can then replace Korneliussen with a lower average? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 Rob Lyon in the May 18th programme: "We have a slightly weird situation elsewhere in the team where Carl Wilkinson is in the top 5 on averages, with NBJ at reserve as he's still on his assessed average. I asked about how we therefore use Kai, because he can't replace an EDR rider, and I've been informed that we have to position Kai in the top 5 on his 4.00 assessed average, with Wilko at reserve. It's all very confusing and complicated... " Irrespective of the definition of a 1-5 rider, with the exception of 1 EDR having to be at #7, the team "must" (repeated 3 times) line up in MA order, which the above scenario completely ignores. What does his assessed average have to do with it? Thats a load of bullrubbish. (not shooting you as the messenger btw!) Regardless of what is being interpreted in the rule book, logic should have been 'no assessed riders unless already an EDR can ride at reserve'. The wording of the rulebook is terrible. 17.4.1.1 A declared #8, can be used as a replacement at any time for a #1 to #5 Team Member by the looks of how thing's are working, it should read: 17.4.1.1 A declared #8, can be used as a replacement at any time for a non EDR but must ride in the #1 to #5 team positions. You say the wording is terrible then make something up. It's simple, Huckenbeck can only replace a 1-5 rider. If NBJ is in reserve, he is NOT a 1-5 rider and cannot be replaced. Now where I will concede there is a possibility is that they have decided 1-5 EDR riders can only be replaced by other EDR riders (they maintain EDR status even in the 1-5) so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that an a 1-5 rider is ALWAYS a 1-5 rider even if he drops to reserve. So that means Huckenbeck CAN replace NBJ when NBJ drops to reserve but nowhere does it say that he should have to ride in the 1-5, that make no sense what so ever. as an aside hypothetical question say: Huckenbeck is a 4.00 assessed average Korneliussen drops to a 3.00 average The current 1-7 team is averaging 44.00 Is it right that Huckenbeck can then replace Korneliussen with a lower average? If Korneliussens average drops to 3 he'd be in reserve (almost certainly) and that means that he cannot be replaced by a #8 using the rules, it only get awkward when you and Rob Lyon start making up your own rules. And it has always been the case that as long as your #8 was declared in your team even if his average went above the riders he was eligible to replace it didn't matter, unless you re-declared. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, you shouldn't be punished because your number 8 has out performed another rider. Obviously if you then redeclare you have to make a change. 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.