WalterPlinge Posted September 14, 2017 Report Share Posted September 14, 2017 Seems the referee had a nightmare at Swindon tonight with Tobias Musielak's rides. Heat 3 - Musielak moves at the start and is given a warning. In the re-run musielak moves again and is correctly disqualified. He is replaced by Liam Carr - so a frustrated ride for Musielak which of course doesn't count towards the 3 ride minimum. Heat 5 - Musielak completes his first ride of the night scoring 2 points. Heat 9 - Musielak moves again at the start. Already having been given a warning in heat 3 he should be disqualified (no replacement permitted in order to take his 3 programmed rides). However referee seems to forget the previous warning and gives him a second warning. Musielak gets to complete his second ride of the night - albeit it with a fell/disqualified. Heat 12 - Musielak misses the 2 minutes and is disqualified. As he has only had 2 rides so far, no replacement is allowed (unless he is withdrawn injured). Referee makes his second mistake by allowing Wilson-Dean to replace him. Surely the 2 points scored by Wilson-Dean in heat 12 must now be removed as Musielak only had 2 rides? And maybe the SCB need to re-train the referee after 2 mistakes in 1 meeting? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theblueboy Posted September 14, 2017 Report Share Posted September 14, 2017 Why, if you were disqualified in heat 3 for movement, would you be disqualified again in heat 9? Musielak moved in each running of heat 3 and was rightly disqualified. You start again thereafter. Come on Walter, if your going to bash the ref for incompetence, at least get it right. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterPlinge Posted September 14, 2017 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2017 Why, if you were disqualified in heat 3 for movement, would you be disqualified again in heat 9? Musielak moved in each running of heat 3 and was rightly disqualified. You start again thereafter. Come on Walter, if your going to bash the ref for incompetence, at least get it right. He should have been disaqualified as he received a warning in heat 3. Once you are on a warning for the meeting, any other infringements result in automatic disqualification. His subsequent infringement in heat 3 correctly resulted in disqualification. The one in heat 9 should have too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryW Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 He should have been disaqualified as he received a warning in heat 3. Once you are on a warning for the meeting, any other infringements result in automatic disqualification. His subsequent infringement in heat 3 correctly resulted in disqualification. The one in heat 9 should have too. That is certainly the way the warning system works in the SGP series but I'm not sure if it's the same for domestic meetings. The rules clearly state that a second offence after a warning will result in disqualification, but it doesn't mention subsequent offences. As it only refers to a second offence after a warning one could assume that a new warning would be required before a disqualification could occur again. As for heat 12. Is it possible he was withdrawn from the meeting injured after his previous fall? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) As for heat 12. Is it possible he was withdrawn from the meeting injured after his previous fall? How can a rider who has been officially signed out of the meeting be excluded under the two minute allowance? He must have still been in the meeting, and therefore the reserve replacement in Heat 12 was illegal. All the best Rob Edited September 15, 2017 by lucifer sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 The two minute clock was visible on the start line and the exclusion light for TM went on the instant it reached zero. There is no doubt whatsoever that he was excluded under two mins and not withdrawn from the meeting. I suspect that this mistake happened because like most of us at this meeting Chris Gay had rather lost the will to live by then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 Any reason why he couldn't have gone off a 15 metre handicap in heat 12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midland Red Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 Did the referee see a medical certificate for Craig Cook? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 Who was the meeting referee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilWatson Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 'Matters of fact' as defined in the Speedway Regulations cannot be appealed, heat results are defined as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealFiend Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 There are so many rules even referee's and team manager's dont know some of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waytogo28 Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 'Matters of fact' as defined in the Speedway Regulations cannot be appealed, heat results are defined as such. So this is how the BSPA run the sport? Are "matters of fact" so very different to "as a matter of fact"? Because as a matter of fact the reserve replacement in heat 12 was illegal. How does the heat result then become a "matter of fact"? Is that why it stands? And DID Craig Cook present a medical certificate to the referee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 When we didn't print Peter Ravn's name in the programme whilst using R/R it's a matter of fact that we got chucked out of the tie we'd just won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) When we didn't print Peter Ravn's name in the programme whilst using R/R it's a matter of fact that we got chucked out of the tie we'd just won. Nice wasn`t it - that`s what team managers get paid for and that was only done because Belle Vue pulled a fast one over the facility. Edited September 15, 2017 by racers and royals 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 No we didn't. It's all about if your face fits and ours hasn't for decades. This will be no different, the deficit will remain at 11 whatever our manager does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) No we didn't. It's all about if your face fits and ours hasn't for decades. This will be no different, the deficit will remain at 11 whatever our manager does. I guarantee that the result will be amended today by deducting BWD`s score in heat 12. Edited September 15, 2017 by racers and royals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waytogo28 Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 I guarantee that the result will be amended today by deducting BWD`s score in heat 12. I do hope that you are right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) I guarantee that the result will be amended today by deducting BWD`s score in heat 12. It certainly should be. I made sure the BV management were aware of the infringement before the meeting was over, during the ridiculous lenghty 'grading break' between Heat 13 and 14. That's, of course, if he hadn't already been spotted down the pits. As already pointed out, it's a matter of fact that BWD was not allowed to replace Musielak. All the best Rob Edited September 15, 2017 by lucifer sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theblueboy Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 I guarantee that the result will be amended today by deducting BWD`s score in heat 12. The inference from the regulations is that an appeal must be made before the following heat? Assuming I have read that correctly. Or are you saying, that the SCB can arbitrarily amend the result irrespective of whether an appeal was made by BV? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattK Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 Seems the referee had a nightmare at Swindon tonight with Tobias Musielak's rides. Heat 9 - Musielak moves again at the start. Already having been given a warning in heat 3 he should be disqualified (no replacement permitted in order to take his 3 programmed rides). However referee seems to forget the previous warning and gives him a second warning. Musielak gets to complete his second ride of the night - albeit it with a fell/disqualified. I think the ref was right. The rules state: 15.3. A Starting Offence is considered to have been committed in the following circumstances: - Gate Preparation after the expiry of the 2-minute allowance. When a rider’s motorcycle touches or breaks the starting tapes whilst the green starting light is on or prevents the raising of the start gate. And fails to comply with: - Art 5.4.4 (riding across the infield prior to a heat) * Art 15.2.2 (returning into the pits) Art 15.2.4 (failure to meet the 2-minute time allowance) Art 15.2.8 (not obeying the Start Marshal instructions) A second offence, following an official warning during the meeting for incorrectly preparing the start gate area, disobeying the start marshal and moving during the illumination of the green light before the tapes are released. Therefore, having already been exclused for a "second offence" in heat 3, he effectively has to offend again twice to get excluded. That's my interpretation anyway. I agree with your assessment of heat 12 though. 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.