racers and royals Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 Johansson being able to guest for BWD is crazy! I thought people were taking the Mickey out of the Poole situation until I checked the averages. Having said that, Bradley did get a maximum there earlier in the season. Hmmmm, not really as clear cut as 15.10 though, I'd say. They have specifically stated that results cannot be amended other than for the reasons given. In other words, if the ref makes a cock up on an individual heat result his decision must stand once the meeting result is declared. To be honest it doesn`t matter what the rule says because the SCB have a dispensation rule- and in this instance because of the cock-up by Swindon! and the ref it should be paramount that this is exercised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalan Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 I think in any sport if a team manager replaces a rider/player against the rules they should be removed from competition as they are in football. That'll make team managers learn the rules. Anyway nothing will happen with the puppet in charge at the SCB! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
False dawn Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 The act of removing the points, and amending the score of the match for that reason, would, in itself, be against the rules. Not at all. If a bike is found to be illegal after a meeting, a rider's points would be removed retrospectively. And that's just one example. A clear rule violation took place, no interpretation necessary. Who's fault it was that the violation took place is secondary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 BWD riding for peterborough I have been saying but the Poole "fans" are enjoying slinging mud Swindon's way in the hope that some will stick and unsettle a winning team ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 To be honest it doesn`t matter what the rule says because the SCB have a dispensation rule- and in this instance because of the cock-up by Swindon! and the ref it should be paramount that this is exercised. You may well be correct, although it's certainly not a clear, written rule that it should be. In fact, the clear written rule says that the result should stand. So, in the end, whether or not the dispensation should be applied comes down to someone's opinion rather than a matter of fact. As I said before, whatever they do decide they need to decide it pretty soon to stop the second leg becoming more of a farce than it already is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) Surely in the interests of fair play Swindon should demand that BWDs points in that heat be deducted from the scoreline. But all we have had is silence. In fact the "mistake" has been known for a while now but the silence has been deafening from the Swindon management. That alone can only be interpreted that along with many of their fans they are hoping to get away with it. A real shame. Edited September 16, 2017 by Steve Shovlar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 Surely in the interests of fair play Swindon should demand that BWDs points in that heat be deducted from the scoreline. But all we have had is silence. In fact the "mistake" has been known for a while now but the silence has been deafening from the Swindon management. That alone can only be interpreted that along with many of their fans they are hoping to get away with it. A real shame. :rofl: 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavan Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 Surely in the interests of fair play Swindon should demand that BWDs points in that heat be deducted from the scoreline. But all we have had is silence. In fact the "mistake" has been known for a while now but the silence has been deafening from the Swindon management. That alone can only be interpreted that along with many of their fans they are hoping to get away with it. A real shame. Is there any chance you can bore off with all your trolling..very sad lonely life you must have 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 Surely in the interests of fair play Swindon should demand that BWDs points in that heat be deducted from the scoreline. But all we have had is silence. In fact the "mistake" has been known for a while now but the silence has been deafening from the Swindon management. That alone can only be interpreted that along with many of their fans they are hoping to get away with it. A real shame. What have the Belle Vue management said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 Not at all. If a bike is found to be illegal after a meeting, a rider's points would be removed retrospectively. And that's just one example. A clear rule violation took place, no interpretation necessary. Who's fault it was that the violation took place is secondary. Exactly. It's as I pointed out when Poole beat us by breaking the rules. Loads of people said the race was run the result recorded with no protest before the following race(s), so the result cannot be amended. This was the exact scenario when Kennett had the illegal silencer. The rule breaking was reported after the whole meeting was completed but the points were removed and the result amended. The ONLY thing stopping this being put right is the same as last time and that's the fact that Belle Vue are involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 There have been many instances over the years where results have later been amended because of some illegality during the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaColette Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 Dont know the man thanks. I came on to this thread and lo and behold he has gone on and on fishing to get a bite. Please ask yourself what his post brings??? Going on about everyone is behind Poole Speedway now. The man is a troll who posts to get reactions..............sad really Have a look at the nature of the posts something that some Poole fans cant do....not sure if its a lack of education down that way. He posts to antagonise and troll......look at his posts on this thread. I give opinions...totally different..................you know opinions like the one i gave that Poole would win at Somerset only to be told i know nothing and speak bullsh1t.... Im sure if Swindon are found in the wrong they will get punished............just hilarious how Poole fans get their knickers in a twist when their club is far and away the biggest culprits. How quickly they forget the goggles issue , Dakota North, Hans Andersen......strange little world down that way So leave us to our strange little world and get lost, get back to guarding your bridge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lioness Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 'Matters of fact' as defined in the Speedway Regulations cannot be appealed, heat results are defined as such. Is that a relatively new rule Neil? (Last 5 years or so). I only ask as it was done a few years back when Redcar appealed a heat result in a meeting against Glasgow and the rede larded result after the appeal was farcical as they updated the Redcar rider in second, not the Glasgow rider in third and gave a point to a rider who DNF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 There have been many instances over the years where results have later been amended because of some illegality during the meeting. Any when they have changed the result of one heat ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) Any when they have changed the result of one heat ? Reading v Oxford, when Oxford used an illegal supplementary reserve in Heat 1. Left the stadium thinking Oxford had won 46-44 (and also wondering if the rules regarding supplementary reserves had changed for a second time that season); the following day, the SCB considered the matter and changed the score to 45-45. I didn't blame Mr Sugar for his objection - rather our team manager for being incompetent. The same should happen with Thursday's meeting - in fact, it should have been amended on Friday. All the best Rob Edited September 16, 2017 by lucifer sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 Reading v Oxford, when Oxford used an illegal supplementary reserve in Heat 1. Left the stadium thinking Oxford had won 46-44 (and also wondering if the rules regarding supplementary reserves had changed for a second time that season); the following day, the SCB considered the matter and changed the score to 45-45. I didn't blame Mr Sugar for his objection - rather our team manager for being incompetent. All the best Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 Reading v Oxford, when Oxford used an illegal supplementary reserve in Heat 1. Left the stadium thinking Oxford had won 46-44 (and also wondering if the rules regarding supplementary reserves had changed for a second time that season); the following day, the SCB considered the matter and changed the score to 45-45. I didn't blame Mr Sugar for his objection - rather our team manager for being incompetent. The same should happen with Thursday's meeting - in fact, it should have been amended on Friday. All the best Rob depends what the rules were then and what they are now ..by all accounts lemon had to make it known to ref by the next heat something he never did . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 depends what the rules were then and what they are now ..by all accounts lemon had to make it known to ref by the next heat something he never did . So you think Swindon should get an unfair advantage for breaking the rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) So you think Swindon should get an unfair advantage for breaking the rules? Didn't see you complaining about gogglegate last year when Poole rode against BV #doublestandards #sh!tshoveller Edited September 16, 2017 by Steve0 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A ORLOV Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 So you think Swindon should get an unfair advantage for breaking the rules? And Poole have not in the past have they ? 1 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.