Scunthorpe Scorpions Vs Edinburgh Monarchs ( P L) - Sunday, July 17th (6.30pm)

[gmuncie]

There was also the fact that there was an edited press release from Edinburgh at nearly half past midnight on Saturday night/Sunday morning. Were they hoping that the release was too late for checks to be made.

 

There is, also, the point that the previous BSPA Chairman is Alan Harkess who should know most of the rules/corners to take, in submitting teams

I can answer this one. It was not an official press release. It was a preview of the match ahead written by myself as a volunteer with no official ties to the club ( as I have done for every match this season apart from the last Berwick home match where I e-mailed the wrong article over by accident) at the time I wrote this on Saturday evening I had not been made aware of any changes to to our programmed 1-7 (tbf I hadn't asked if there was any) whether the management were aware of Dan's availability or not at this stage I don't know but there was no cloak and dagger element to this.

 

As for your second point about Mr Harkess that's laughable. The BSPA told the Monarchs that Dan had to ride for Belle Vue and the BSPA have issued the NL averages showing Mitch was eligible.

 

Who is the vice chairman of said BSPA....... That's right it's Scunny promoter Rob Godfrey!

Edited July 21, 2016 by gmuncie

[King Jamie]

interestingly (or perhaps not), there's a new issue of green sheets for NL today. still no additional notes beside the name of Mitchell Davey...

[bigcatdiary]

I thought it was interesting that of the two SCB statements issued at the same time only One had the SCB panel listed which included one Edinburgh promoter.

 

The rulebook contradicts itself which is evident by the SCB statement, it basically comes down to how the powers at be want to interpret the rules, a good example is Matt Ford in the star this week with Ford quoting the meeting referee and Graham Reeve as completely unable to say why he couldn't use Jake Allen or Charles Wright as a guest in the Poole match v Lakeside.

 

Perhaps a new SCB manager and a new rulebook will help, we will see, I am not holding my breath.

[Islander15]

Reading the SCB statement, there seems to be 2 conclusions from it. Firstly the BSPA didn't know there own rules last week and told Edinburgh that they could use a guest for Bewley (if they'd have got that bit right then there would've been no controversy at all). Secondly Scunthorpe, and all teams, should put a protest in at the appropriate time scale, otherwise the referee's decision is final.

 

Both of which points seem to have come to a fair conclusion, but the legitimacy of the appeal has to be questioned when one of the panel examining it was Edinburgh's promoter!

Edited July 22, 2016 by Islander15

[DavyH]

Reading the SCB statement, there seems to be 2 conclusions from it. Firstly the BSPA didn't know there own rules last week and told Edinburgh that they could use a guest for Bewley (if they'd have got that bit right then there would've been no controversy at all). Secondly Scunthorpe, and all teams, should put a protest in at the appropriate time scale, otherwise the referee's decision is final.

 

Both of which points seem to have come to a fair conclusion, but the legitimacy of the appeal has to be questioned when one of the panel examining it was Edinburgh's promoter!

 

Absolute crap, members of the BSPA committee will not be involved when a decision affects their own team.

 

The statement could not be clearer - BSPA rules applied as per Cyclone's post above, What gets me is why things like this get anywhere near a protest. Surely the BSPA should be explaining before the meeting to BOTH teams why Davey is eligible to ride. And why Mr Godfrey doesn't appear to know the rules on how to make an appeal!!

[TheScotsman]

GIRUY!

[MANSE]

Talking about yourself

[hunch]

It may be absolute crap that Alex Harness was involved in the decision,the problem is none of us actually believe decisions are taken impartially within speedway at all.

None of this is Scunthorpe or Edinburgh's fault really it's the primary school standard of rule book everyone is trying to work to.

Re Rob Godfrey appealing in time,to which interpretation of the rules should he appeal and was he made aware of the type of facility to be used as Davey is clear to ride under one clause and not the other.

It's clear to me from statements at the time an nlg was intended,the rulebook has allowed it to be justified another way.

The biggest shame here is that there's been more debate about the rulebook and appeal than what was an outstanding meeting and to me that's why speedway continues to struggle.

I'm a Scunthorpe fan and obviously disagree with the ruling but I completely accept the match result as it was unaffected by any of the above and that's the way it should be.

[John Leslie]

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 Rider 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 Club’s 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.

 

If we're working to that rule, you don't get as far as 16.1.3 because 16.1.1 says that Belle Vue should always have priority over Bewley as he is their asset.

[TheScotsman]

Shame that Mitchell's performance has been overshadowed by the stoozy caused by the appeal.

 

3 rides - 4+1 including 3 times finishing ahead of Josh Bailey who clocks an NL average of 8.4 which is more than decent.

 

And this after missing 3 years because of a very serious leg injury.

 

 

Well done young man.

[Al Stewart]

 

Which is an ignorance-is-bliss approach, rather than spending two minutes on the BSPA website... as I did, and found a past 4.23 PL average for Mitchell Davey during the course of 2009.

 

I understand that it has also been clarified that Davey would have been eligible as an NL guest as only end-of-season averages are considered, a very sensible approach as it ensures the best chance of a balance of fixtures. It also means no-one has to trawl through hundreds of issues of the green sheets which no-one other than you would want to do. Most are not readily available. Mitchell still is eligible as an NL guest.

 

The one you found was dated 14th October but clearly relates to a different time, given the big difference between the averages there and the end of season ones dated the end of October. Perhaps it came from the last time Glasgow made a team change.

 

It's obvious to me that rule 18.10 should have been re-written in the light of the new no. 7 rules, and that any guest for a no. 7 should be someone eligible to ride as a no. 7 rather than simply someone with an equal or lower average. But we all know the rulebook needs a lot of work.

 

I think it's ironic that so many teams use guest facilities and get substantially stronger. That never seems to happen for Edinburgh and yet we bring in a rider clearly weaker (on current scoring) than the one he is replacing, and it causes the biggest furore in the history of guests!

[Blacksmith]

Well Lucifer Sam you clearly don't know as much as you think you do. 😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

All the best Mark

Edited July 22, 2016 by Blacksmith

[lucifer sam]

I understand that it has also been clarified that Davey would have been eligible as an NL guest as only end-of-season averages are considered, a very sensible approach as it ensures the best chance of a balance of fixtures. It also means no-one has to trawl through hundreds of issues of the green sheets which no-one other than you would want to do. Most are not readily available. Mitchell still is eligible as an NL guest.

 

The one you found was dated 14th October but clearly relates to a different time, given the big difference between the averages there and the end of season ones dated the end of October. Perhaps it came from the last time Glasgow made a team change.

 

It's obvious to me that rule 18.10 should have been re-written in the light of the new no. 7 rules, and that any guest for a no. 7 should be someone eligible to ride as a no. 7 rather than simply someone with an equal or lower average. But we all know the rulebook needs a lot of work.

 

I think it's ironic that so many teams use guest facilities and get substantially stronger. That never seems to happen for Edinburgh and yet we bring in a rider clearly weaker (on current scoring) than the one he is replacing, and it causes the biggest furore in the history of guests!

 

Hi Al, yes 18.10 needs re-wording and also perhaps 19.9.3.

 

There's another thing that the statement doesn't make clear (it also needs an amendment, because Friday to Sunday is not 72 hours!). Was the BSPA member actually correct in telling Edinburgh that the NL league meeting took priority, even if the PL fixture was re-arranged? 19.9.3 suggests otherwise. Al, it may be something that the Edinburgh promotion want to clarify for future clashes, to avoid future furore!

 

 

Well Lucifer Sam you clearly don't know as much as you think you do.

 

All the best Mark

 

No, I've been around long enough to realise that Edinburgh always get their own way.

 

Still time to move on.

 

All the very best with hugs and kisses

Rob

Edited July 22, 2016 by lucifer sam

[Islander15]

Absolute crap, members of the BSPA committee will not be involved when a decision affects their own team.

 

The statement could not be clearer - BSPA rules applied as per Cyclone's post above, What gets me is why things like this get anywhere near a protest. Surely the BSPA should be explaining before the meeting to BOTH teams why Davey is eligible to ride. And why Mr Godfrey doesn't appear to know the rules on how to make an appeal!!

Jeez, you've just resulted to insults! When the Mildenhall match statement clarified who was involved in the appeal process then why are we not told who made this decision?

Edited July 22, 2016 by Islander15

[TheScotsman]

Or........................

 

Who was it in the BSPA, of which Rob Godrey has a major role (Vice Chairman?), that ordered Dan Bewley to ride at Buxton instead of at Scunny?

 

 

 

Just asking!!

[DavyH]

Jeez, you've just resulted to insults! When the Mildenhall match statement clarified who was involved in the appeal process then why are we not told who made this decision?

Insults?? Where?? You were inferring that a Monarchs official influenced the decision , I explained what really happens i.e. a BSPA member is NOT involved when an issue involves their team.

 

If you want to know who made the decision, ask the BSPA!!

[speed ace]

Shame that Mitchell's performance has been overshadowed by the stoozy caused by the appeal.

 

3 rides - 4+1 including 3 times finishing ahead of Josh Bailey who clocks an NL average of 8.4 which is more than decent.

 

And this after missing 3 years because of a very serious leg injury.

 

 

Well done young man.

4+2

It may be absolute crap that Alex Harness was involved in the decision,the problem is none of us actually believe decisions are taken impartially within speedway at all.

None of this is Scunthorpe or Edinburgh's fault really it's the primary school standard of rule book everyone is trying to work to.

Re Rob Godfrey appealing in time,to which interpretation of the rules should he appeal and was he made aware of the type of facility to be used as Davey is clear to ride under one clause and not the other.

It's clear to me from statements at the time an nlg was intended,the rulebook has allowed it to be justified another way.

The biggest shame here is that there's been more debate about the rulebook and appeal than what was an outstanding meeting and to me that's why speedway continues to struggle.

I'm a Scunthorpe fan and obviously disagree with the ruling but I completely accept the match result as it was unaffected by any of the above and that's the way it should be.

I'm neither an Edinburgh or Scunthorp fan, but I agree with the ruling as it appears correct, it's the way they are written that makes them seem contradictory.

Seems to me you're contradicting yourself, as if you deduct the points scored by the rider in question, then it would have changed the result.

 

Great race track and good return for Mitchell on his first pl match after a long time out, now let's all move on.

[AlanF]

I think the Scunthorpe interpretation of the rules seems to be correct. However, Edinburgh sought clarification from the BSPA and followed their instructions. Therefore, it doesn't seem fair to punish them for it. I believe that the SCB made the correct decision but for the wrong reasons.

Edited July 22, 2016 by AlanF

[hunch]

I don't think I've suggested any points deducted as part of any ruling,people have assumed that may happen had the appeal been upheld so no contradiction from me.

I would have liked some clarity but all that's been given is a justification via one of many possible readings of the rules

In my opinion results should be earned on track not via an appeal,we had the chance to win the meeting in the 15 and didnt

[Islander15]

I think the Scunthorpe interpretation of the rules seems to be correct. However, Edinburgh sought clarification from the BSPA and followed their instructions. Therefore, it doesn't seem fair to punish them for it. I believe that the SCB made the correct decision but for the wrong reasons.

That's my interpretation of events too.