Broadsider Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 i must say that heat 7 was epic... i dont think anyone will see a race that good without any passing in it ever... hope it gets on youtube Just woke up after the most incredible speedway dream! Quick check of my mini-cam clip and cripes its there! Only went and blinking happend! Rules apart, witnessed some of the most thrillingly incredible blanket speedway you will ever see What a ding-dong affair! Stood watching with the French sponsors of Erik & Mark Riss and they were absolutely amazed at the sheer quality of racing on what was a superbly prepared track! They were fulllsome in their praise and described its as some of the most perfect racing they'd ever seen! They weren't wrong! Take a massive bow, Rob, the team & everyone.The world needs to know about super scintillating Scunthorpe Speedway! Keep looking Paul, l'll be back later. Epic!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCookie Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 For a generally rubbish team Scunthorpe don't half do some bleating! Don't know who they think they are. Seem to think because they have a half decent track the PL owes them something, but if you're going to produce the teams they do on a regular basis then it most certainly doesn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Regardless of whether Davey shouldve been allowed to guest there is one point that seems to have missed. I thought the regs no longer allowed riding under protest about team conpositon? Isnt there now a section (last two years or so) setting out required timescales for protests and that once the meeting starts thats it - decision final. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthegearbutnaeidea Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Regardless of whether Davey shouldve been allowed to guest there is one point that seems to have missed. I thought the regs no longer allowed riding under protest about team conpositon? Isnt there now a section (last two years or so) setting out required timescales for protests and that once the meeting starts thats it - decision final. I thought it was just that you had to put in the protest before the meeting started if it was to do with the starting line up 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montie Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Regardless of the rights and wrongs that was the best speedway meeting ive seen for many years Scunny simply didnt have the luck on their side yesterday 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney the robin Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 It sounded like a terrific meeting which is great news i hope someone puts heat 7 on you tube.Apparently the team riding of Riss/Fisher was awesome Auty/Toft tried everything great to see the artform of team riding is not totally lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted July 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 But even if it doesn't, the BSPA NL Green Sheet is the relevant document. They can't refute their own issued information! What else do people have to go on? Even if they decide that Mitchell should be ineligible when 18:10(e) is relevant, the only thing they can do is issue a new Green Sheet showing that, effective from now. It can't possibly be retrospective. Al, if one were cynical, one might suggest that Edinburgh were well aware of the obvious error in the NL Green Sheets regarding Davey, and announced his presence as late as possible (late yesterday morning), to try to stop anybody spotting it in time. Unfortunately for them, Scunny did, and placed a protest in time. How on earth did Edinburgh seriously think they could use a rider who came in on a 5.00 assessed PL average as a NL guest? We'll wait and see the outcome. All the best Rob 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Al, if one were cynical, one might suggest that Edinburgh were well aware of the obvious error in the NL Green Sheets regarding Davey, and announced his presence as late as possible (late yesterday morning), to try to stop anybody spotting it in time. Unfortunately for them, Scunny did, and placed a protest in time. How on earth did Edinburgh seriously think they could use a rider who came in on a 5.00 assessed PL average as a NL guest? We'll wait and see the outcome. All the best Rob Where does this 'No facility' nonsense come from when Bewley was legitimately riding for his other team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac101 Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Sure the facility was there to have a NL guest but that guest must not have ever had a pl ave over 4 which mitch has had he came into the pl with a accessed 5 strange thing think he can be declared as a pl number 7 but can't guest as one only in the 1-6 for a guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 For one thing I don't accept that 18:10(e) is the relevant rule because I think 18:10(d) applies. But even if it doesn't, the BSPA NL Green Sheet is the relevant document. They can't refute their own issued information! What else do people have to go on? Even if they decide that Mitchell should be ineligible when 18:10(e) is relevant, the only thing they can do is issue a new Green Sheet showing that, effective from now. It can't possibly be retrospective. 18.10(e) is relevant because PL ALWAYS takes priority over NL unless it's I believe NLRC or NL 4s. Any gentlemans agreement between BV and Edinburgh is just that. Also, rules state "has never achieved ", not "never at the end of a season achieved". I'm with Scunthorpe on this one. The only bit of sympathy I have with Edinburgh is the NL averages bit you mention. But thats a BSPA cock up and if Scunthorpe can do the research and find out this, why can't Edinburgh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pogo1 Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 M Davey can not take the place of Dan Bewley, first instance is that a PL club will have priority over a NL club so Bewley should have been riding for Edinburgh, secondly M Davey has had an average over 4 at some point in his career, 4.23 I believe? Edinburgh probably didn't check with the bspa for approval, but there pretty shrewd guys in the east normally, this time however they have broke the rules , An Aussie riding in a spot meant for British youngsters, no, not on I'm afraid !!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Johnson Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Reading the match report, Rob said the guest must of been someone who had "come through the NL leaque" not someone suddenly allowed to ride in it... i said in a previous post i thought Bewley should have rode for Belle Vue as this was a rearanged fixture, just seems to me that Edinboro picked the wrong guest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Think the problem is that the No.7 has to be a NL eligible rider who has not been named in a PL 1-7 previously. Mitchell Davey has been in a PL 1-7 previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) Regardless of whether Davey shouldve been allowed to guest there is one point that seems to have missed. I thought the regs no longer allowed riding under protest about team conpositon? Isnt there now a section (last two years or so) setting out required timescales for protests and that once the meeting starts thats it - decision final. The rulebook says, 3.9 Procedure and Time Limits for Protests to the BSPA MC (limited to Team Notifications (ART. 16.4.4) a. A Protest must be in writing, relate to a single issue only, be accompanied by the correct fee and signed by the person directly affected. b. A Protest against the legality of a Team Line-Up within the following timescale: i) For Team Line-Ups notified / changed at any time up to 28 hours before the Meeting Start Time, a Protest must be lodged at least 24 hours prior to the Meeting start Time. ii) For Team Line-Ups notified less than 28 hours before the Meeting start Time, a Protest must be lodged within 4 hours of the notification being made, and in all cases, no later than 1 hour prior to the Meeting start Time 3.9 a ii is the relevant bit here. As long as Scunny protested within 4 hours of knowing about Davey (Edinburgh didnt declare him until the morning of the meeting) then the protest is legal. Where does this 'No facility' nonsense come from when Bewley was legitimately riding for his other team?He wasn't legitimately riding for BV though. PL always gets priority over NL. The rulebook says, 16.1 Fixtures shall take priority as follows: FIM SGP, SWC, SGP Qualifying Meetings, FIM Junior Speedway Championship Meetings British Championships (Senior, Junior), BSPA Shared and Fee Events Official Competitions: 1. Elite League; 2. Premier League; 3.National League. NB. Non-Official Competitions have no priority over any of the above. A rRider must be released to take part in a higher priority Meeting, unless he is Doubling Up or is an EDR, in which case the priority for a clash of Official Meetings is as follows: 16.1.1 The owning Club (ie. on Clubs Retained List) or before the start of the Season was transferred with the full Transfer Fee being paid. 16.1.2 If neither Club has ownership, then it is determined by the League status of the Club that does own the rider. If that Club is a NL Club then agreement can be made otherwise Art. 16.1 applies. 16.1.3 The Original Fixture if there is a clash with a re-Arranged Fixture 16.1.4 A Transfer during the Season does not change this priority. He's not an EDR to 16.1.1, 16.1.2, 16.1.3 and 16.1.4 are not relevant. PL trumps NL. Edited July 18, 2016 by SCB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 The rulebook says, 3.9 a ii is the relevant bit here. As long as Scunny protested within 4 hours of knowing about Davey (Edinburgh didnt declare him until the morning of the meeting) then the protest is legal. He wasn't legitimately riding for BV though. PL always gets priority over NL. The rulebook says, He's not an EDR to 16.1.1, 16.1.2, 16.1.3 and 16.1.4 are not relevant. PL trumps NL. thanks scb So it seems Edinburgh left it til just a few hours before to name Davey meaning there was insufficient time for the legitimate protest to be considered. Im putting myself in the Scunny camp from what ive seen so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadders Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) Is there a lawyer in the house? The way I see it is that Edinburgh had a while to choose a guest for Bewley, but left it until the last minute to announce Davey, leaving Scunthorpe insufficient time to lodge a written protest. Clever or sneaky, you decide Edited July 18, 2016 by Shads 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Regardless of the rights and wrongs that was the best speedway meeting ive seen for many years Me too. Doing the updates, I ran out of superlatives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Stewart Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 thanks scb So it seems Edinburgh left it til just a few hours before to name Davey meaning there was insufficient time for the legitimate protest to be considered. Im putting myself in the Scunny camp from what ive seen so far. Edinburgh were instructed by the BSPA to let Bewley go with Belle Vue, because the match at Scunthorpe was rearranged. Therefore Edinburgh were entitled to a 3-point guest and it is irrelevant whether Davey can be a "NL guest" or not. Why on earth would we not have wanted to take Dan to Scunthorpe? He is scoring far more heavily than Mitchell in the NL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Edinburgh were instructed by the BSPA to let Bewley go with Belle Vue, because the match at Scunthorpe was rearranged. Therefore Edinburgh were entitled to a 3-point guest and it is irrelevant whether Davey can be a "NL guest" or not. Why on earth would we not have wanted to take Dan to Scunthorpe? He is scoring far more heavily than Mitchell in the NL. so one rule was broken (guest) because another was overidden (pl/nl priority)So you are saying 2 wrongs sometimes do make a right?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young51 Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 M Davey can not take the place of Dan Bewley, first instance is that a PL club will have priority over a NL club so Bewley should have been riding for Edinburgh, secondly M Davey has had an average over 4 at some point in his career, 4.23 I believe? Edinburgh probably didn't check with the bspa for approval, but there pretty shrewd guys in the east normally, this time however they have broke the rules , An Aussie riding in a spot meant for British youngsters, no, not on I'm afraid !!! Do keep up Pogo1..Mitchell Davey is now a British Citizen so it is on im afraid!!!!! 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.