BWitcher Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) might well get a peep from Bwitcher though ,since none of his posts are relevant to any thread , just abusive Bless, Only abusive to racists. The only question is whether Tungate was injured in last night's meeting or not otherwise this is one of those areas where the rules are crystal clear. 17.12 RIDER ELIGIBILITY 17.12.1 All riders are subject to a minimum 3 rides per Meeting, although "frustrated" rides do not count. 17.12.2 If a rider (except those riding as per Art 17.6 (g) is prevented as a result of an injury sustained in that Meeting (as confirmed by the CMO), the minimum ride rule will not apply. If Tungate wasn't injured last night he had to have three rides, if he couldn't take his third ride then 17.12.7 In order that a rider takes the "minimum" number of rides, then changes must be made to a Heat Line up, (excluding any nominated or Top Scorers Heat) or sufficient heats must start with no replacements. So at least one heat would need to be run with 3 riders. If a rider has had 3 rides he isn't eligible for irr. If Tungate was injured last night he would not have had to complete 3 rides and irr would have been available. This is to stop a rider having two poor rides and the manager saying he is injured because he stubbed his toe the day before getting out of the bath or risking an injured rider and it not working out in a sort of cake and eat it no lose scenario. Pretty obvious really. I haven't all of a sudden become interested in the rules but I did download them the other day and when I noticed someone questioning why irr wasn't used last night I thought I'd check. If you didn't know about the criteria for not having to take 3 rides then it would be easy to confuse yourself. That's how I've always understood it as well Fred, pretty clear that IRR was not available last night. I'd like to add my congratulations to Leicester, in particular Nicolai Klindt who rode his heart out to get a 21pt maximum in a recent home meet, only to see Leicester miss out by 2 pts at the end. I was concerned a similar thing was going to happen again last night, but this time they saw it through. Edited June 3, 2016 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 The only question is whether Tungate was injured in last night's meeting or not otherwise this is one of those areas where the rules are crystal clear. 17.12 RIDER ELIGIBILITY 17.12.1 All riders are subject to a minimum 3 rides per Meeting, although "frustrated" rides do not count. 17.12.2 If a rider (except those riding as per Art 17.6 (g) is prevented as a result of an injury sustained in that Meeting (as confirmed by the CMO), the minimum ride rule will not apply. If Tungate wasn't injured last night he had to have three rides, if he couldn't take his third ride then 17.12.7 In order that a rider takes the "minimum" number of rides, then changes must be made to a Heat Line up, (excluding any nominated or Top Scorers Heat) or sufficient heats must start with no replacements. So at least one heat would need to be run with 3 riders. If a rider has had 3 rides he isn't eligible for irr. If Tungate was injured last night he would not have had to complete 3 rides and irr would have been available. This is to stop a rider having two poor rides and the manager saying he is injured because he stubbed his toe the day before getting out of the bath or risking an injured rider and it not working out in a sort of cake and eat it no lose scenario. Pretty obvious really. I haven't all of a sudden become interested in the rules but I did download them the other day and when I noticed someone questioning why irr wasn't used last night I thought I'd check. If you didn't know about the criteria for not having to take 3 rides then it would be easy to confuse yourself. You appear to be confused. You are imputing the requirement for the injury to have occurred in the meeting into the rules because you think it should be there. However it is not there. Furthermore it has been confirmed by last night's referee[\b] that IRR was available. So I can say with complete certainty that you are on this occasion wrong (although I do think the availability of IRR in such circumstances is odd). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) You appear to be confused. You are imputing the requirement for the injury to have occurred in the meeting into the rules because you think it should be there. However it is not there. Furthermore it has been confirmed by last night's referee[\b] that IRR was available. So I can say with complete certainty that you are on this occasion wrong (although I do think the availability of IRR in such circumstances is odd). Where is he inputting? It states that a rider must have three rides unless he is injured in THAT meeting. For a speedway rule, it's pretty clear. The referee's interpretation is just asking for problems... perfect for teams with riders like Troy Batchelor who might decide they're not up for racing on a particular night, instead of being stuck with them for at least 3 rides, can claim a previous injury and replace him the rest of the night after his first one. Edited June 3, 2016 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Where is he inputting? It states that a rider must have three rides unless he is injured in THAT meeting. For a speedway rule, it's pretty clear. The referee's interpretation is just asking for problems... perfect for teams with riders like Troy Batchelor who might decide they're not up for racing on a particular night, instead of being stuck with them for at least 3 rides, can claim a previous injury and replace him the rest of the night after his first one. The relevant rule is 17.9 NOT 17.12. The phrase 'that meeting' does not appear in 17.9 - maybe it should, but it doesn't. The referee was clear last night that IRR was available, but I suppose he could always have asked the SCB co-ordinator for clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) The relevant rule is 17.9 NOT 17.12. The phrase 'that meeting' does not appear in 17.9 - maybe it should, but it doesn't. The referee was clear last night that IRR was available, but I suppose he could always have asked the SCB co-ordinator for clarification. I'd disagree personally and believe that Rider Eligibility over rides any reference to IRR. It clearly states a rider must have three rides and the only time that can be ignored is through an injury in that meeting. It is quite clear that this means if a rider is injured in the meeting then the three ride rule is waived and other options can be used.. i.e. IRR or reserve replacement. Tungate was not injured in the meeting so as PER THE RULES he must take three rides. It is 100% crystal clear. There is nothing in the IRR rule to state that the rider eligibility rule should be ignored. Edited June 3, 2016 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 I'd disagree personally and believe that Rider Eligibility over rides any reference to IRR. It clearly states a rider must have three rides and the only time that can be ignored is through an injury in that meeting. It is quite clear that this means if a rider is injured in the meeting then the three ride rule is waived and other options can be used.. i.e. IRR or reserve replacement. Tungate was not injured in the meeting so as PER THE RULES he must take three rides. It is 100% crystal clear. There is nothing in the IRR rule to state that the rider eligibility rule should be ignored. I fully understand the argument you are making and the position you have taken, and have considerable sympathy for it, but it appears the referee was not minded to accept that interpretation. Let's add it to the ever growing list sections of the rules that need rewriting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdmc82 Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Any news on the guest for Wozniak (and possibly Tungate) for the return leg? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A ORLOV Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Any news on the guest for Wozniak (and possibly Tungate) for the return leg? Both TBC at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 The relevant rule is 17.9 NOT 17.12. The phrase 'that meeting' does not appear in 17.9 - maybe it should, but it doesn't. The referee was clear last night that IRR was available, but I suppose he could always have asked the SCB co-ordinator for clarification. Arnie- I think you know who the ref was with that last comment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdmc82 Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Ludvig Lindgren replaces @SzWozniak at reserve tomorrow for @SpeedwayLions Interesting choice of guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 I fully understand the argument you are making and the position you have taken, and have considerable sympathy for it, but it appears the referee was not minded to accept that interpretation. Let's add it to the ever growing list sections of the rules that need rewriting. So the referee has concocted his own rules then.. interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Perhaps that should be the case but it is not what the rule says. IRR was available. I think, possibly incorrectly that Freds point is that if IRR wasn't allowed as the injury wasn't picked up in this meeting then reserve replacement wasn't allowed in one of the heats either as the rules say that you have to have 3 rides, unless injured in the relevant meeting. And it's certainly how I read things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noggin Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Tungate not too injured, riding for Somerset tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannahrack Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 A lot of peeps wont be able to afford the two, unfortunately hundreds will go tomorrow and not Thursday, where it will be back to the hardcore support. Even one meeting a week or 4 a month would be a bonus thesedays. Leicester are just cannon fodder the Roobins should hit 60. LOL COCKY BEEFY In your dreams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdmc82 Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Tungate not too injured, riding for Somerset tonight. That's strange. Should be ok for tomorrow then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannahrack Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Bit surprised the club didn't offer £10 tickets for anyone who went on Monday. Can't see many takers at £17 against the worst team in EL history. If its Lions you mean They Beat you lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoombdog Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 That's strange. Should be ok for tomorrow then I've heard he's due to aggravate his shoulder injury at 9am tomorrow. If its Lions you mean They Beat you lol Yeah I might have been slightly wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 I think, possibly incorrectly that Freds point is that if IRR wasn't allowed as the injury wasn't picked up in this meeting then reserve replacement wasn't allowed in one of the heats either as the rules say that you have to have 3 rides, unless injured in the relevant meeting. And it's certainly how I read things. Agreed. But the fact roscoe was allowed to use reserves indicates the ref must have deemed the injury to be sustained during the meeting and hence irr must also gave been available.I guess most riders race with some level of injury being carried, so guess it's a tough one to establish whether the cause of a rider being unable to complete his rides occurred during or before the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Well its poor withdrawing from a meeting and then riding the next day! He should go - and has probably already been told which is why he withdrew from the meeting - midget! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shale Searcher Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Is it a job of the referee to give the/any team manager the list of options available, if the/any team manager doesn't ask the referee?? 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.