HenryW Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Let's get this right. The rule wasn't misinterpreted, it was written wrong. There was no other way to interpret what was originally written than how it was implemented at Glasgow and Wolverhampton. What was intended was irrelevant at that point. The rules as written were followed. They have now corrected the rule to be what they apparently originally intended but failed to write. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 The question is, how do they manage to write so many rules so badly? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acclennell Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Let's get this right. The rule wasn't misinterpreted, it was written wrong. There was no other way to interpret what was originally written than how it was implemented at Glasgow and Wolverhampton. What was intended was irrelevant at that point. The rules as written were followed. They have now corrected the rule to be what they apparently originally intended but failed to write. Disagree the rule was misinterperated as the correct rule was not followed. Yes I agee it has been amended to avoid any ambiguity but it doesn't alter the fact that there should not have been a rider replacement for the exclusion apart from a reserve. What I will say is why are referees not briefed in the rules before the start of the season (and if they are then something is obviously wrong) and also why this has took so long to be clarified as George had highlighted this earlier in the seson. Obviously George knew exactly what the rule implied so why did the other promotions not as surely the rules are agreed at the promotors meetings before the season starts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 There has been another supplementary regulation issued 18.10(D) The eligibility of a Guest for an absent #7 is:A rider who was eligible to ride in that position at the start of the season and whose average is thesame or lower than that of the absent rider.Issued: Monday 23rd May 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 There has been another supplementary regulation issued 18.10(D) The eligibility of a Guest for an absent #7 is: A rider who was eligible to ride in that position at the start of the season and whose average is the same or lower than that of the absent rider. Issued: Monday 23rd May 2016 Which rightly stops the pathetic use of rider's like Stuart Robson etc for EDR's. Common sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Which rightly stops the pathetic use of rider's like Stuart Robson etc for EDR's. Common sense It doesn't, it only applies to the PL but asks more questions than it answers there because the #7 isn't necessarily the original 3pt #7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 It doesn't, it only applies to the PL but asks more questions than it answers there because the #7 isn't necessarily the original 3pt #7. Which has been SCB's argument too but I think the rules are written in that as per start of the season. So EDR's will always be #6 & #7 in terms of the rules even if they're in the 1-5. If that makes sense? Does to me anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Which has been SCB's argument too but I think the rules are written in that as per start of the season. So EDR's will always be #6 & #7 in terms of the rules even if they're in the 1-5. If that makes sense? Does to me anyway EDRs are always EDRs wherever they line up in the team but #6 & #7, in terms of team line up, are the two lowest riders by MA with the proviso that only an EDR can be at #7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Please tell me I'm wrong,does this mean that if a rider touches the tapes in heat 15 he can go off 15 metres from his original gate position but if a rider touches the tapes in heats 1 to 14 he can go off 15 metres but has to go from gate 4. If that's right isn't it a contradiction. Or better still isn't it just bonkers, that's the same offence with 2 rules. Is it me, I hope it is 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Please tell me I'm wrong,does this mean that if a rider touches the tapes in heat 15 he can go off 15 metres from his original gate position but if a rider touches the tapes in heats 1 to 14 he can go off 15 metres but has to go from gate 4. If that's right isn't it a contradiction. Or better still isn't it just bonkers, that's the same offence with 2 rules. Is it me, I hope it is No, I think we are all a bit bemused. But it is intentional. Apparently the expectation is that the requirement to go off gate 4 when on a 15 metre handicap in heats 1 to 14 will probably be removed from the rulebook next winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 ah another change to the rules, what a surprise 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.