Congratulations Tai Woffinden, 2016 World Speedway Champion

[bruno]

Thought Hancock was well out of order, however what about the joker situation in the World Cup when riders deliberately slow to avoid letting the opposition use the joker. Different circumstances same principal though. It's a form of cheating

[SCB]

Thought Hancock was well out of order, however what about the joker situation in the World Cup when riders deliberately slow to avoid letting the opposition use the joker. Different circumstances same principal though. It's a form of cheating

The difference is in the SWC you sometimes have to drop a point for you to gain later on, it's tactical. But in the SGP you're only ever racing for yourself and there is nothing to be gained by letting an opponent through, you're simply helping someone else which is match fixing.

[horneymikh]

The difference is in the SWC you sometimes have to drop a point for you to gain later on, it's tactical. But in the SGP you're only ever racing for yourself and there is nothing to be gained by letting an opponent through, you're simply helping someone else which is match fixing.

Are the rules not the same though, in that you have to be seen to be racing? In a league match when 2 riders from the same team are dq'd, the 2 remaining riders in the heat have to be seen to be racing?

[BWitcher]

As i stated quite clearly i don't have a 'purpose'.I have pointed out a few times before i am absolutely no fan of Hancock.Try again

 

I don't need to try again, you've invented something that isn't there.

 

The rule is 100% clear, very unusual for speedway.

[SCB]

Are the rules not the same though, in that you have to be seen to be racing? In a league match when 2 riders from the same team are dq'd, the 2 remaining riders in the heat have to be seen to be racing?

I don't believe there is a rule that says riders have to race. Not since the 80s any way.

 

Greg was excluded for unsporting conduct.

Edited October 23, 2016 by SCB

[waiheke1]

The difference is in the SWC you sometimes have to drop a point for you to gain later on, it's tactical. But in the SGP you're only ever racing for yourself and there is nothing to be gained by letting an opponent through, you're simply helping someone else which is match fixing.

What about a situition where you can drop a point to ensure a rival misses out on the semis. That would be gaining a tactical advantage.

As it stands seems greg was excluded for unsportsmanlike behaviour, both scenarios (I. E. Inc the swc one) could be said to be unsportsmanlike.

That said, it has happened so much it's odd greg got singled out for it (though I agree with the decision).

All of which is I guess beside the point, the point is whether greg should be in elegible for rest of the series and whether that precludes him ftom being world champion.

I was leaning towards iris' interpretation, but the first section mentions "remainder of series" which would indicate it could apply from a point part way through the series.

Do the same rules apply to the sgp qualifiers? As there are countless examples there of riders pulling out.

[horneymikh]

Hmm, every time it occurs on Sky, the shouty brothers tell us that the riders have to be seen to be racing...so I have taken that to mean it is a rule.

 

Have noticed that Grey infringed an FMI sporting conduct rule, so hopefully this will put a stop to this kind of thing in the SWC as well?

[BWitcher]

What about a situition where you can drop a point to ensure a rival misses out on the semis. That would be gaining a tactical advantage.

As it stands seems greg was excluded for unsportsmanlike behaviour, both scenarios (I. E. Inc the swc one) could be said to be unsportsmanlike.

That said, it has happened so much it's odd greg got singled out for it (though I agree with the decision).

All of which is I guess beside the point, the point is whether greg should be in elegible for rest of the series and whether that precludes him ftom being world champion.

I was leaning towards iris' interpretation, but the first section mentions "remainder of series" which would indicate it could apply from a point part way through the series.

Do the same rules apply to the sgp qualifiers? As there are countless examples there of riders pulling out.

 

I really can't see why anybody is trying to interpret anything. It's crystal clear what it says. Any GP rider who withdraws from a meeting is ruled ineligible for rest of the Championship. It doesn't matter if its the first GP or the last GP. The punishment is the same, you are ineligible. Hancock, by the rules, cannot be champion of something he is ineligible for.

 

Of course we all know the rule won't be applied, but that doesn't change what the rule actually is.

[Panthers89]

Let's face it, rules are there which is easy too see, Hancock should be stripped of the title but it won't happen, absolutely no chance. Imagine the embarrassment, they will just stay quiet and hope the fans forget.

[Trees]

Let's face it, rules are there which is easy too see, Hancock should be stripped of the title but it won't happen, absolutely no chance. Imagine the embarrassment, they will just stay quiet and hope the fans forget.

It works, they forgot Warsaw etc etc etc lol

[pugwash]

Are the rules not the same though, in that you have to be seen to be racing? In a league match when 2 riders from the same team are dq'd, the 2 remaining riders in the heat have to be seen to be racing?

 

 

Hmm, every time it occurs on Sky, the shouty brothers tell us that the riders have to be seen to be racing...so I have taken that to mean it is a rule.

 

Have noticed that Grey infringed an FMI sporting conduct rule, so hopefully this will put a stop to this kind of thing in the SWC as well?

In the leagues a rider only needs to look over his shoulder and Pearson ejaculates about team riding. Is this not the same scenario?

[Guest GiveusaB]

I think Jepsen Jensen also let Iversen through.......

 

Well done to Greg.....helping team mates out has been going on for years.....I'm not saying that I agree, but it's virtually impossible to stop.....

It's the same when teams are trying to avoid racing in order to get enough points behind in the WTC in order to play the joker !?

 

It spoilt a reasonably good meeting.

Hope Zagar gets a wildcard !

[Guest wolfhound]

I think BWitcher is stretching a point here.

Nice try though but it seems a loser to me as Hancock actually rode in the meeting proper and therefore surely cannot be disqualified from the whole series BUT by withdrawing from the meeting which I presume was without the referee's permission (?), breaks the rules and for this he should receive either a fine or a ban?

Now a fine would be meaningless for Hancock but if he should receive a ban of say 2 GP's (it is the top Championship after all), his chances would be slim of retaining the title and he could even decide to not take part next season which would make many anti-Hancock fans happy but still leave him as the 2016 World Champion!

[BWitcher]

I think BWitcher is stretching a point here.

Nice try though but it seems a loser to me as Hancock actually rode in the meeting proper and therefore surely cannot be disqualified from the whole series BUT by withdrawing from the meeting which I presume was without the referee's permission (?), breaks the rules and for this he should receive either a fine or a ban?

Now a fine would be meaningless for Hancock but if he should receive a ban of say 2 GP's (it is the top Championship after all), his chances would be slim of retaining the title and he could even decide to not take part next season which would make many anti-Hancock fans happy but still leave him as the 2016 World Champion!

 

Another deciding to invent things.

 

There is no 'stretching'.

 

There is no need for you to invent anything either, the rule has been quoted and is quite clear.

[RPNY]

Bwitcher not much I disagree with you on however despite the fact that yes to the letter of the law it might be the rule, I think it'd be very sad if the rider that scored the most points didnt get awarded to world title..

[BWitcher]

Bwitcher not much I disagree with you on however despite the fact that yes to the letter of the law it might be the rule, I think it'd be very sad if the rider that scored the most points didnt get awarded to world title..

 

I haven't said anything about whether I think it's a good or bad thing.. I agree it's somewhat crazy.

 

All I have said is that, as you confirm, it IS the rule.

[woofers]

OK can we look at this again, just the Grand Prix, forget the SWC and the League, we're not discussing those on this thread.

 

Taking it one step at a time-

 

The first part, Greg clearly has entered the Grand Prix World Championships, and has refused to take part in the later part of the final meeting. He is deemed therefore to be suspended for a period of 1 day before and 3 days after the meeting (presumably this rule is to prevent GP riders choosing to take part in another, perhaps more lucrative, event elsewhere). So he could have his Melbourne points deducted?

 

Next, he shall be considered as "ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season" - I read this as he cannot take part in any more meetings. But there aren't any more meetings, so the worst / best that can happen is that he could have 5 points deducted from his final score, reducing his total from 139 to 134, still ahead of Woffindens 130.

 

The second paragraph of the rule doesn't apply in this case, he started the series and has participated.

 

I am no Hancock fan, and think he behaved inappropriately, but he was the highest points scoring over the series.

 

Once again, a speedway rule is open to interpretation, BWitcher thinks it's "crystal clear" and has taken the ineligible phrase to mean as ineligible for the Championship outright, I have read it as meaning a rider is ineligible to take part in any further meetings.

 

So, not so 100% clear.

[JoeW]

OK can we look at this again, just the Grand Prix, forget the SWC and the League, we're not discussing those on this thread.

 

Taking it one step at a time-

 

The first part, Greg clearly has entered the Grand Prix World Championships, and has refused to take part in the later part of the final meeting. He is deemed therefore to be suspended for a period of 1 day before and 3 days after the meeting (presumably this rule is to prevent GP riders choosing to take part in another, perhaps more lucrative, event elsewhere). So he could have his Melbourne points deducted?

 

Next, he shall be considered as "ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season" - I read this as he cannot take part in any more meetings. But there aren't any more meetings, so the worst / best that can happen is that he could have 5 points deducted from his final score, reducing his total from 139 to 134, still ahead of Woffindens 130.

 

The second paragraph of the rule doesn't apply in this case, he started the series and has participated.

 

I am no Hancock fan, and think he behaved inappropriately, but he was the highest points scoring over the series.

 

Once again, a speedway rule is open to interpretation, BWitcher thinks it's "crystal clear" and has taken the ineligible phrase to mean as ineligible for the Championship outright, I have read it as meaning a rider is ineligible to take part in any further meetings.

 

So, not so 100% clear.

Meetings are not mentioned. Only the Championship is. If he had walked out of the first meeting he would be ineligible so why should the last be any different? Edited October 24, 2016 by brough

[BWitcher]

OK can we look at this again, just the Grand Prix, forget the SWC and the League, we're not discussing those on this thread.

 

Taking it one step at a time-

 

The first part, Greg clearly has entered the Grand Prix World Championships, and has refused to take part in the later part of the final meeting. He is deemed therefore to be suspended for a period of 1 day before and 3 days after the meeting (presumably this rule is to prevent GP riders choosing to take part in another, perhaps more lucrative, event elsewhere). So he could have his Melbourne points deducted?

 

Next, he shall be considered as "ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season" - I read this as he cannot take part in any more meetings. But there aren't any more meetings, so the worst / best that can happen is that he could have 5 points deducted from his final score, reducing his total from 139 to 134, still ahead of Woffindens 130.

 

The second paragraph of the rule doesn't apply in this case, he started the series and has participated.

 

I am no Hancock fan, and think he behaved inappropriately, but he was the highest points scoring over the series.

 

Once again, a speedway rule is open to interpretation, BWitcher thinks it's "crystal clear" and has taken the ineligible phrase to mean as ineligible for the Championship outright, I have read it as meaning a rider is ineligible to take part in any further meetings.

 

So, not so 100% clear.

 

Once again, you're inventing things that aren't there.

 

There is no mention of meetings. Simply, he is ineligible for the championship. It is crystal clear.

 

It doesn't matter if someone walked out of the first, fourth, eighth or last meeting. The moment they do so they render themselves ineligible for the championship.

[woofers]

Meetings are not mentioned. Only the Championship is. If he had walked out of the first meeting he would be ineligible so why should the last be any different?

Meetings are mentioned in the first sentence of the rule.

 

If he had walked out of the first meeting, he would have been "ineligible for the remainder of the season", he walked out of the last meeting - there was no "remainder of the season".

 

Using your logic, the words "remainder of the season" would not need to be in the rule, nor come to think of it, would the any reference to suspension, as using your interpretation the rule could read basically along the lines, of "miss any meeting, for any reason other than injury, and you're out, points scored to date don't count, your ineligible, full stop" - is that a fair summary of your take on it ?

Once again, you're inventing things that aren't there.

 

There is no mention of meetings. Simply, he is ineligible for the championship. It is crystal clear.

 

It doesn't matter if someone walked out of the first, fourth, eighth or last meeting. The moment they do so they render themselves ineligible for the championship.

 

So where do you think "remainder of the season" fits in ?