TheScotsman Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Well that's not a good way to totally throw a meeting away. One of the best I would say. Can't see the bookies paying out though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Blobby Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Pretty sure we've won a meeting with a 5-0 in heat 15 away from home before somewhere but can't quite remember where. Any members of the weej able to help me out? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Collective amnesia is a prerequisite for being a weej. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenway Bleachers Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 It was at Rye in 2010 Blobs !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Blobby Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 It was at Rye in 2010 Blobs !!! There was another somewhere think it was along the M8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadders Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 It was at Rye in 2010 Blobs !!! No it wasn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 An absolutely superb speedway meeting, best I have seen this season and probably for several seasons Only downer was the anti-climax in heat 15 and the fact that Scunthorpe most certainly didn't deserve to lose and, I'd say, Edinburgh didn't deserve to win. Still, this happens. That aside, virtually every race was brilliant and both sides deserve a great deal of credit. Every week we hear fans, promoters, team managers and all sorts of others blaming the weather or stock cars for their crap track. Scunny had a stock car meeting last night and it was a hot, breezy day today. I'll ask again : What do Scunny know that everyone else doesn't ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Fantastic meeting... with Edinburgh having all the luck. The racing was simply brilliant, one of the best meetings this year, just a shame it ended like it did. Would've been a different result had the ref rightly called heat 12, no way did clegg win that... and Fisher should've been excluded from heat 10, racing incident yes, he didn't deliberately mean to rear up, however it was dangerous, it impeded Ryan Douglas.. if it wasn't for Ryans awareness it would of resulted in a massive off for both riders. That said, congrats to both teams, was one hell of a meeting. Scunny rode under protest with regards to Mitchell Daveys inclusion... so we'll have to wait and see the outcome of that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander15 Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Anyone know the grounds for the protest against Davey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 No it wasn't I was at Rye that day & ht 15 ended 3 - 2 for Rockets with both Frampton & Fisher being excluded for falling in the first two runs. Monarchs did win 45 - 44 as per today's result Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Fantastic meeting... with Edinburgh having all the luck. The racing was simply brilliant, one of the best meetings this year, just a shame it ended like it did. Would've been a different result had the ref rightly called heat 12, no way did clegg win that... and Fisher should've been excluded from heat 10, racing incident yes, he didn't deliberately mean to rear up, however it was dangerous, it impeded Ryan Douglas.. if it wasn't for Ryans awareness it would of resulted in a massive off for both riders. That said, congrats to both teams, was one hell of a meeting. Scunny rode under protest with regards to Mitchell Daveys inclusion... so we'll have to wait and see the outcome of that. I thought Kerr won that one too but my view wasn't perfect so I asked someone at the tapes at the end. They said Clegg got it. I, too, thought Fisher should have been excluded. He was at 45 degrees across the track and it shouldn't take a crash for a rider to be disqualified. I also thought that Douglas caused Kerr to fall in heat 15 and he should have gone rather than Kerr. Mitchell Davey is declared in Coventry's NL team. As far as I can see he is an NL guest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthegearbutnaeidea Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) I thought Kerr won that one too but my view wasn't perfect so I asked someone at the tapes at the end. They said Clegg got it. I, too, thought Fisher should have been excluded. He was at 45 degrees across the track and it shouldn't take a crash for a rider to be disqualified. I also thought that Douglas caused Kerr to fall in heat 15 and he should have gone rather than Kerr. Mitchell Davey is declared in Coventry's NL team. As far as I can see he is an NL guest. There's a rule where if a NL rider ever achieved a 4 PL average he is not allowed to guest in the PL?!?! EDIT- Just checked and that rule is that you are not allowed to guest as a NL only guest in PL if you have ever achieved more than a 4, I don't think Davey ever has anyways Edited July 17, 2016 by allthegearbutnaeidea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted July 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) There's a rule where if a NL rider ever achieved a 4 PL average he is not allowed to guest in the PL?!?! EDIT- Just checked and that rule is that you are not allowed to guest as a NL only guest in PL if you have ever achieved more than a 4, I don't think Davey ever has anyways You mean this one: 18.10 FACILITIES a1) Absent #1: G or RR a2) Absent D-U or EDR (if riding for the “other” team) G or RR b ) 1 Absent rider (2 – 5): RR c) More than 1 Absent rider (1 - 5) 1 x RR facility and G for all others d) Absent #6 or #7: G e) “No Facility”: NL G* NL G*: a rider eligible for a NL Team who has never achieved an actual PL MA of 4.00 or above A quick check of the BSPA website shows that Mitchell Davey's average has gone above 4.00 in the past. For example, I spotted that his GSA for October 2009 was 4.23. All the best Rob Edited July 17, 2016 by lucifer sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthegearbutnaeidea Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 You mean this one: 18.10 FACILITIES a1) Absent #1: G or RR a2) Absent D-U or EDR (if riding for the other team) G or RR b ) 1 Absent rider (2 5): RR c) More than 1 Absent rider (1 - 5) 1 x RR facility and G for all others d) Absent #6 or #7: G e) No Facility: NL G* NL G*: a rider eligible for a NL Team who has never achieved an actual PL MA of 4.00 or above A quick check of the BSPA website shows that Mitchell Davey's average has gone above 4.00 in the past. For example, I spotted that his GSA for October 2009 was 4.23. All the best Rob What facility was granted for them though, wouldn't it of been D and not E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) I thought Kerr won that one too but my view wasn't perfect so I asked someone at the tapes at the end. They said Clegg got it. I, too, thought Fisher should have been excluded. He was at 45 degrees across the track and it shouldn't take a crash for a rider to be disqualified. I also thought that Douglas caused Kerr to fall in heat 15 and he should have gone rather than Kerr. Mitchell Davey is declared in Coventry's NL team. As far as I can see he is an NL guest. And Davey is also a UK Passport Holder, whose last PL GSA was 3.00, and is not in any other PL team's declared 1 - 7. If it was somehow ruled that only Dan Bewley was eligible to ride at Scunny today, then would that mean that Bewley's 13 for BV Colts at Buxton this afternoon would also be annulled? Edited July 17, 2016 by cyclone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecksact Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Let the mitch-hunt recommence! Would've been funnier if he'd ridden for Ipswich! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 What facility was granted for them though, wouldn't it of been D and not E Probably not, given that the missing rider is one of the development ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted July 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) What facility was granted for them though, wouldn't it of been D and not E Edinburgh opted through choice not to use Bewley today, so E applies. You don't get a facility if you choose not to use a rider. Ironically, I think Davey is eligible to ride at No 7, but not to guest for someone else under 18.10 e) All the best Rob Edited July 17, 2016 by lucifer sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewy Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Monarchs manipulating the rules nothing wrong with that apparently! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthegearbutnaeidea Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Edinburgh opted through choice not to use Bewley today, so E applies. All the best Rob oosha, see ya 3 points for Edinburgh hahahahahaha 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.