Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Somerset V Swindon 21/4/17


Recommended Posts

This question was asked on Facebook and Àlun Rossiter replied to it stating Somerset are allowed a guest as it is his nations championship. If it wasn't allowed I'm pretty sure Rossiter wouldn't be backing the Rebels.

They are allowed a facility but not a guest. Rossiter clearly has not read the rule book.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule Book States

 

18.10.1 If a rider is representing their FMN in an FIM Speedway Championship, irrespective of the rider’s MA, a choice of Guest or Absent Rider Replacement facility (then the (if permitted by Art 18.10) is available. (if permitted by Art 18.10) is available. (if permitted by Art 18.10) is available. applies.)

 

so a guest is OK but if you use the a choice of Guest or Absent Rider Replacement facility then (if permitted by Art 18.10) is available. (if permitted by Art 18.10) is available

 

the word or defines it to two separate choices so Somerset chose the Guest

 

Is that plainer for all

Edited by idh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if permited by ART 18.10 is the key bit surely?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question was asked on Facebook and Àlun Rossiter replied to it stating Somerset are allowed a guest as it is his nations championship. If it wasn't allowed I'm pretty sure Rossiter wouldn't be backing the Rebels.

 

yes. It was me who asked it.

 

 

They are allowed a facility but not a guest. Rossiter clearly has not read the rule book.

 

He has, because I posted a jpeg of the relevent sections!

 

They have all clearly agreed amongst themselves that if a rider is in a national championship then there can be a guest for a rider in positions 2 to 5 - so why keep a rule in the rule book that says you can't?

 

Surely they must know by know how anal we all get about the rule book!

 

I'm trying to see if there can be any ambiguity in the rule, and the only thing I can see is that what they mean is you can have a guest or rider replacement for the team positions that allow a facility in 18.10 - ie 1-5 but not 6 to 7. But if they do mean that, it takes a bit of lateral thinking for it to mean that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But hes not riding in an FIM meeting. So 18.10.1 is NOT relevant.

 

16.5.1 d) says a facility is allowed but nowhere does it say a guest is allowed, just the normal facility for a missing 2-5 rider. Which is R/R.

Edited by SCB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But hes not riding in an FIM meeting. So 18.10.1 is NOT relevant.

 

It must be one of their "unwritten" rules then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no that only applies if you dont elect to use a guest

 

So you're suggesting the ART 18.10 element only applied to the choice of R/R in this instance - looking at ART 18.10, only reserves (obviously) can't be covered by R/R anyway and a guest is permitted in this circumstance only, for a team position that is normally only covered by R/R?

 

If so, that rule is incredibly clumsily worded and has been mis-interpreted by a large proportion of fans

 

And it isn't a FIM meeting anyway, it'll be DMU - confused?!!!

Edited by frigbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i'm saying rule 18.10.1 applies

 

But 18.10.1 then refers to "if permitted by Art 18.10" - therefore the definitive answer is in ART 18.10. That says R/R only for 2-5.

 

Oh, and of course the small matter that 18.10.1 is nullified by the fact it isn'ta FIM meeting Hougaard is at.

 

it's nonsense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i'm saying rule 18.10.1 applies

Why does 18.10.1 apply? 18.10.1 applies to FIM meetings, Paddys meeting is NOT an FIM meeting.

 

 

Willing to have a friendly wager with anyone that this facility isn't allowed. £20 to the SRBF say Brady isn't allowed to ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it does turn out to be FIM affiliated, people are still ignoring the "if permitted by Art 18.10" statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it does turn out to be FIM affiliated, people are still ignoring the "if permitted by Art 18.10" statement.

And people are still missing​ the agreed by all parties bit. The BSPA and Swindon have agreed to the guest, Somerset have broken no rules if all parties have agreed to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy