arnieg Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 It can't be all heats because heat 15 is the only one that has "qualified" riders.I don't think it is the correct interpretation, but one could argue that there are other 'qualified riders' if the situation is one where the "FN" rider is taking a rider replacement ride. I think this rule is clear and clearly in the right place. There are no issues at all with the wording of this rule. Whether it was as necessary change is another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Pairman Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 Supplementary Regulation issued this afternoon: The Speedway Control BureauSUPPLEMENTARY REGULATION 2016 / 02Art. 15.14.3Art 15.14.3 ( is re-written as follows:A rider in the top 3 of that Meeting’s Team by current MA (NB. A Team missing one of their top 3and using the RR Facility may use the 4th highest rider by MA)If a rider is disqualified for an offence under Art 15.3 then the Team Manger can chose either thati) The disqualified Rider starts in the same starting gate position on a 15-metre handicaporii) is replaced by a Reserve (who will start in the same gate position from at the tapes.In the re-run of Heat 15 where a non-disqualified rider is unable to take part in a re-run (FN) thenthe place may be taken by a Reserve or another “qualified” rider.Issued: Wednesday 1st June 2016The Speedway Control BureauACU House Wood Street Rugby CV21 2YXTel: 01788 565603www.scbgb.co.ukE-mail: info@scbgb.co.uk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 Supplementary Regulation issued this afternoon: The Speedway Control Bureau SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATION 2016 / 02 Art. 15.14.3 Art 15.14.3 ( is re-written as follows: A rider in the top 3 of that Meeting’s Team by current MA (NB. A Team missing one of their top 3 and using the RR Facility may use the 4th highest rider by MA) If a rider is disqualified for an offence under Art 15.3 then the Team Manger can chose either that i) The disqualified Rider starts in the same starting gate position on a 15-metre handicap or ii) is replaced by a Reserve (who will start in the same gate position from at the tapes. In the re-run of Heat 15 where a non-disqualified rider is unable to take part in a re-run (FN) then the place may be taken by a Reserve or another “qualified” rider. Issued: Wednesday 1st June 2016 The Speedway Control Bureau ACU House Wood Street Rugby CV21 2YX Tel: 01788 565603 www.scbgb.co.uk E-mail: info@scbgb.co.uk Thanks for publishing that Gordon. So on Sunday, Glasgow putting Summers in was wrong, and once again George English was right. At Berwick, George had to 'overrule' Ronnie Allan and the Berwick promotion, saying that was not how the ruling was arrived at, regardless of the rule being poorly written. The heat had been selected for different treatment to other heats, to maintain a higher standard for the premier heat of a meeting. At Glasgow, they should have put Richie off 15 metres or a reserve from the gate. Will we get a rerun then ?. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 The revised ruling also means if they opt for the 15m handicap, the "offender" now starts from his original gate position, 15m back, instead of always off gate 4, This will prevent tactical tape touching, when start gates 1 & 3 appear to be a too great a handicap compared to 2 & 4, as the original gate positions will be unchanged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrow Boy 2 Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Wouldn't it be much simpler if all the relevant rule(s) were replaced by one that reads the riders for heat 15 may be any 2 riders af the team manager's choosing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndbendbeerhut Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 But why only in heat 15 does a rider start 15m back in the original gate position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Najjer Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 The revised ruling also means if they opt for the 15m handicap, the "offender" now starts from his original gate position, 15m back, instead of always off gate 4, This will prevent tactical tape touching, when start gates 1 & 3 appear to be a too great a handicap compared to 2 & 4, as the original gate positions will be unchanged. Does beg the question why this isn't always the case then.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Does beg the question why this isn't always the case then.... Given the rationale for moving the handicapped rider to gate 4 was safety this does seem a perverse decision. Surely the number of situations where one rider off gate 2 and the other off 15 metres benefits a team is so limited that it isn't worth legislating for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solidmango Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Thanks for publishing that Gordon. So on Sunday, Glasgow putting Summers in was wrong, and once again George English was right. At Berwick, George had to 'overrule' Ronnie Allan and the Berwick promotion, saying that was not how the ruling was arrived at, regardless of the rule being poorly written. The heat had been selected for different treatment to other heats, to maintain a higher standard for the premier heat of a meeting. At Glasgow, they should have put Richie off 15 metres or a reserve from the gate. Will we get a rerun then ?. What did Glasgow do wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Main thing here is they have fixed a stupid rule! Now to change the rule that says if you move but dont touch the tapes you get punished more than if you just touched the tapes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronScorpion Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 At most tracks, gate 4 seems to have an advantage so make all tape touching back 15m on original gate. It then removes the "done it for tactical reason". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 What did Glasgow do wrong? More like why Glasgow were allowed to put a rider in off the gate after a tape infringement disqualification, when that was not supposed to happen, but the ref allowed it. It has taken this wrongdoing to get the rule amended, and it now reads as it was proposed to happen. Like what happened when George advised the referee about the intention of the rule at Berwick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solidmango Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 More like why Glasgow were allowed to put a rider in off the gate after a tape infringement disqualification, when that was not supposed to happen, but the ref allowed it. It has taken this wrongdoing to get the rule amended, and it now reads as it was proposed to happen. Like what happened when George advised the referee about the intention of the rule at Berwick. I'm confused! The rule has been changed after the Glasgow meeting and after Monday's Sky meeting. The same thing happened in both and in both situations the referred applied the rule in the rule book. This has subsequently changed as of the 1st June, i.e after both of these meetings and thus nobody has done anything wrong. Or have they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 I'm confused! The rule has been changed after the Glasgow meeting and after Monday's Sky meeting. The same thing happened in both and in both situations the referred applied the rule in the rule book. This has subsequently changed as of the 1st June, i.e after both of these meetings and thus nobody has done anything wrong. Or have they? They had done wrong. They'd miss-interpreted the rule hence the amendment 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 I'm confused! The rule has been changed after the Glasgow meeting and after Monday's Sky meeting. The same thing happened in both and in both situations the referred applied the rule in the rule book. This has subsequently changed as of the 1st June, i.e after both of these meetings and thus nobody has done anything wrong. Or have they? So how did George English get Ronnie Allan to apply the new rule at Berwick. Another team puts a reserve in as a replacement, and Glasgow put another rider in and is allowed to go off the tapes. One decision out of line, with the other two as it has now been applied/rewritten. From what has been read the only real change is the 15 metre rider staying in the original lane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solidmango Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 So how did George English get Ronnie Allan to apply the new rule at Berwick. Another team puts a reserve in as a replacement, and Glasgow put another rider in and is allowed to go off the tapes. One decision out of line, with the other two as it has now been applied/rewritten. From what has been read the only real change is the 15 metre rider staying in the original lane. The rule has been amended meaning it is different from what it was. The same thing happened in the sky meeting in the Elite league on Monday evening. If Glasgow broke the rule then there would have been no need for the amendment would there?! They had done wrong. They'd miss-interpreted the rule hence the amendment Nobody misinterpreted the rule, the rule wouldn't need to be amended if it was misinterpreted. On a separate note, It's the referees job to ensure the rules are abided and I believe he did in both meetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acclennell Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 The rule has been amended meaning it is different from what it was. The same thing happened in the sky meeting in the Elite league on Monday evening. If Glasgow broke the rule then there would have been no need for the amendment would there?! Nobody misinterpreted the rule, the rule wouldn't need to be amended if it was misinterpreted. On a separate note, It's the referees job to ensure the rules are abided and I believe he did in both meetings. He obviously didn't and thats why the SCB have put out this statement after a complaint from George English and to ensure the rule is NOT misinterpreted in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 The rule has been amended meaning it is different from what it was. The same thing happened in the sky meeting in the Elite league on Monday evening. If Glasgow broke the rule then there would have been no need for the amendment would there?! Nobody misinterpreted the rule, the rule wouldn't need to be amended if it was misinterpreted. On a separate note, It's the referees job to ensure the rules are abided and I believe he did in both meetings. If you misinterpret a rule it doesn't need amending Brilliant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solidmango Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 He obviously didn't and thats why the SCB have put out this statement after a complaint from George English and to ensure the rule is NOT misinterpreted in future. Why is an amendment/supplementary rule required for a misinterpretation? This is by more than one referee as I have pointed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acclennell Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 (edited) Why is an amendment/supplementary rule required for a misinterpretation? This is by more than one referee as I have pointed out. And both referees were wrong do you really think that the SCB are going to totally change a rule mid season just because George complained. The rule has been amended in clear speak to ensure no misinterpratation but the point is that the rule was misinterprated in the two meetings you mention and to be fair in the Berwick match earlier in the season. They have not 'changed' the rule they have amended the rule in better terms to ensure that the rule is not incorrectly adhered to in future. Well done George for ensuring clarity is brought to the table and to be fair most people were unsure what the rule meant and I for one was dumbfounded when I heard Summers was being brought in as a replacement for an excluded rider. Edited June 2, 2016 by acclennell 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.