Plymouth V Birmingham Fri 12th May

[brianbuck]

I was aware of that and appreciate that this is wholly understandable. There are always exceptional circumstances, but I'm just saying that if a rider is missing when he just doesn't fancy a particular track or an inconvenient journey, then his club shouldn't be allowed to benefit from it.

[greyhoundp]

Can't quite see what you are getting at with this reply. The "please yourself when you ride" rule seems to have been abused/used by more of the established National League riders than by Junior riders. Tom Perry, Georgie Wood, Jake Knight, Richard Andrews, Jack Kingston are a few examples.

 

I can appreciate the difficulties that individual riders might sometimes have with their daytime jobs, but I'm just suggesting that clubs who are prepared to put up with this shouldn't be allowed to use guests or rider-replacement - they should have to promote a number 8.

 

Brian i would be careful on this Topic your manager has made an art of using riding rider unavailability, Young Banks from a few years ago to mention just one, yes it is open to abuse but not by riders its by officials.

[NeilWatson]

Can't quite see what you are getting at with this reply. The "please yourself when you ride" rule seems to have been abused/used by more of the established National League riders than by Junior riders. Tom Perry, Georgie Wood, Jake Knight, Richard Andrews, Jack Kingston are a few examples.

 

I can appreciate the difficulties that individual riders might sometimes have with their daytime jobs, but I'm just suggesting that clubs who are prepared to put up with this shouldn't be allowed to use guests or rider-replacement - they should have to promote a number 8.

Brian

 

Under the system you propose, one contemporary example would be that MIldenhall would not have been able to include Jordan Jenkins in their team this year. Their team building would have had to comprise seven riders who could commit 100% to the NDL fixture list, which would suggest journeyman riders.

 

In my opinion Jordan Jenkins is exactly the type of rider that the NDL should embrace, both for now and for the future of speedway.

 

I accept the current rule may be used in a different way on occasions, but it is always the Club official that decides what team to declare, not the rider.

 

The NDL Is exactly what it says, a DEVELOPMENT league, and speedway will be the poorer if the whole flavour of the league changes.

[*JJ]

The NDL Is exactly what it says, a DEVELOPMENT league, and speedway will be the poorer if the whole flavour of the league changes.

The NL has changed long since, in fact. It is now to a large extent, simply a Third Division.

[gazzac]

Think if you take the season as a whole what goes round comes round in most cases. I think the NL is just right as it is. It's still a development league bringing in and on the likes of Brennen, Jenkins, JPB, Bickley etc , but is also a competitive enough league to bring enough spectators through the gates to keep these clubs going . At Eastie, the fact Brennen is racing against experienced guys like Ayres, Davey Armstrong etc is bringing him on in leaps and bounds.

[cityrebel]

Brennan was flying again at eastie last night. Only a fast start by Mitchell davey in heat 15 denied him a full house.

[brianbuck]

I wasn't suggesting that someone like Jordan Jenkins shouldn't be allowed to ride - just saying that if a club is prepared to include a rider in their declared team knowing that he is going to miss meetings, then they shouldn't be allowed to use a guest or rider-replacement in his absence - they should have to use their number 8.

 

I'm not excluding Birmingham from criticism either - it was Kyle Roberts missing the Plymouth meeting which prompted me to write on this subject. It is morally wrong for Birmingham to have used rider-replacement in this instance.

 

I'm not blaming the riders either - the rule shouldn't have been introduced at all - like I said, a child of 5 could have seen that it was going to be abused. It isn't on the books yet for the top two leagues - but how long before it gets there? There are already too many rules that are open to abuse and I don't think we nee any more of them.

Edited May 14, 2017 by BBuck

[NeilWatson]

I wasn't suggesting that someone like Jordan Jenkins shouldn't be allowed to ride - just saying that if a club is prepared to include a rider in their declared team knowing that he is going to miss meetings, then they shouldn't be allowed to use a guest or rider-replacement in his absence - they should have to use their number 8.

 

I'm not excluding Birmingham from criticism either - it was Kyle Roberts missing the Plymouth meeting which prompted me to write on this subject. It is morally wrong for Birmingham to have used rider-replacement in this instance.

 

I'm not blaming the riders either - the rule shouldn't have been introduced at all - like I said, a child of 5 could have seen that it was going to be abused. It isn't on the books yet for the top two leagues - but how long before it gets there? There are already too many rules that are open to abuse and I don't think we nee any more of them.

Using Jordan Jenkins again as an example, he has a 'current' average of 6.93, so once Mildenhall get new MAs they would be faced with replacing him with an unattached 3 point rider. Hardly an encouragement to bring on new talent - as the better they are the more the Club (and their business) would suffer.

 

Tom Brennan at Eastbourne is currently running a 10 point average and is likely to be Eastbourne's No 1 in the first MAs - so their disadvantage would be even greater.

Edited May 14, 2017 by NeilWatson

[*JJ]

I'm not excluding Birmingham from criticism either - it was Kyle Roberts missing the Plymouth meeting which prompted me to write on this subject. It is morally wrong for Birmingham to have used rider-replacement in this instance.

I know you don't like R/R, Brian, but in the case of Roberts, he was signed in a hurry after Hay retired, so you can't blame Birmingham for not forseeing this ocurrence?

[brianbuck]

I can't see that a rider's age has any particular relevance. If it were Tony Atkin missing meetings then Stoke would similarly disadvantaged.

 

What if a leading rider decided that he wouldn't bother travelling for away matches? As this rule stands, he could do this - and his club would have the benefit of a guest or r/r. I know this is an extreme example, and the liklihood that the authorities would step in and put a stop to it, but I can't accept that it is a good rule if it gives a promoter the opportunity to say to one of his riders "look Joe, you never do much at Mildenbourne, so duck out of our match there and we'll use a guest/r/r in your place." "We can always put your absence down as work commitments."

 

I can appreciate that a case can be made for individual circumstances, but a blank cheque for "work commitments" shouldn't be acceptable.

 

Perhaps I'm a lone voice on this, and I wouldn't fall out with anyone over it, but like most people, I want speedway to have a straightforward and sensible book of regulations and I don't think this is one of these.

[gazzac]

I can't see that a rider's age has any particular relevance. If it were Tony Atkin missing meetings then Stoke would similarly disadvantaged.

 

What if a leading rider decided that he wouldn't bother travelling for away matches? As this rule stands, he could do this - and his club would have the benefit of a guest or r/r. I know this is an extreme example, and the liklihood that the authorities would step in and put a stop to it, but I can't accept that it is a good rule if it gives a promoter the opportunity to say to one of his riders "look Joe, you never do much at Mildenbourne, so duck out of our match there and we'll use a guest/r/r in your place." "We can always put your absence down as work commitments."

 

I can appreciate that a case can be made for individual circumstances, but a blank cheque for "work commitments" shouldn't be acceptable.

 

Perhaps I'm a lone voice on this, and I wouldn't fall out with anyone over it, but like most people, I want speedway to have a straightforward and sensible book of regulations and I don't think this is one of these.

Perhaps a maximum amount per rider (maybe once or twice a season), or

maybe once or twice per club, then revert to a no 8 or a 3 point rider. Would give leaway for exceptional circumstances like exams /child birth etc, but limit any club taking the mickey.

On hindsight probably best to limit the amount of times a club does it rather than a rider.

Edited May 15, 2017 by gazzac