Refereeing Cock-up At Swindon V Belle Vue Ko Cup

[racers and royals]

I think it`s passed the time when an amended score would have been released- so we can safely say(unfortunately ) that the result stands.

[NeilWatson]

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

IIRC the rule was introduced precisely to stop appeals after the event, probably at the same time the new process for declaring line-ups with clear timelines for queries was introduced.

[ouch]

I bet Kennett wishes his silencer shenanigans was more recent as nowadays he'd be ok.

 

I'm not a fan of the new rules but if that's the case then we'll have to live with it.

[orion]

So you think Swindon should get an unfair advantage for breaking the rules?

Being a sports fan I understand it's ref job on the day day to apply the rules and some times he will get it wrong and some one will gain from that ..the history of sport is full of these .When Newman never had his goggles on in the play off final was one of these times when it happened but I don't remember you making any comment about it ..so the question is does it only matter if it does not concern your team .

[Beowulf]

All this dodgy stuff coming out of Swindon. BWD turning up to ride at Poole but Swindon booked a guest who was better. BWD must be well peed off losing wages so Swindon could gain an advantage in the playoffs.

 

Now not satisfied with that, they continue by only giving the out of form dodgy Pole two rides. Again benefitting as the ref missed it. You couldn't make it up. No wonder people are saying if Swindon win either the league or cup it will be a hollow success which will leave a bad taste in the mouths of every fair minded fan.

 

Never seen so many on social media praying for a Poole victory in the second leg of the playoffs to bring respect and karma back to the sport.

Comedy gold. You really should consider writing a series for the BBC.

[SCB]

Nothing can be done retrospectively. The rules say BV had to appeal before the next heat. Thats it.

 

However, thats a stupid rule. Imagine Poole had used an illegal rider in their last meeting at Somerset and won the meeting by a point (or two), Somerset had not noticed. Had that illegal rider not been used Poole had lost. Rye House should be allowed to appear retrospectively.

 

The rule is abysmal, but, you can't ignore the rules that says you have to appeal sooner or you're breaking the rules yourself.

[ouch]

Must admit that the revelation that the sport of speedway allows rules to be broken without punishment pretty much does it for me. It was hanging by a thread to be honest, I even gave the PLRC a miss tonight being a BSPA event.

 

My season ticket is all used up and so is my desire to carry on with this once wonderful sport.

 

Up the aces and tat tar.

[BurntFaceMan]

Nothing can be done retrospectively. The rules say BV had to appeal before the next heat. Thats it.

 

However, thats a stupid rule. Imagine Poole had used an illegal rider in their last meeting at Somerset and won the meeting by a point (or two), Somerset had not noticed. Had that illegal rider not been used Poole had lost. Rye House should be allowed to appear retrospectively.

 

The rule is abysmal, but, you can't ignore the rules that says you have to appeal sooner or you're breaking the rules yourself.

 

Yes it's a stupid rule. You'd need a lawyer present at each meeting just to comb through the rules for infractions after each heat.

[OldRacer]

 

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

Presumably Tim Sugar protested the result before heat two started. He was pretty good with the rule book. It doesn't sound like a protest was made in a timely fashion in this instance.

[DunRobin]

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?

 

I don't believe he issued a warning in heat 3. He merely asked the rider in red to remain still & I didn't see any warning sign raised in front of the rider when he returned to the tapes. If that is correct, then he shouldn't have been disqualified from the race. The bloke had a nightmare on the night, he was holding the tapes too long all night & I think this is what is causing so many restarts now, along with the ref guessing when anybody makes a good start that they must have moved. There was a case in point in a recently televised meeting, when Doyley was pulled back for moving. However, when you rerun the race, the tapes definitely moved before Doyley did, a perfect start in fact.

[foreverblue]

Nothing can be done retrospectively. The rules say BV had to appeal before the next heat. Thats it.

 

However, thats a stupid rule. Imagine Poole had used an illegal rider in their last meeting at Somerset and won the meeting by a point (or two), Somerset had not noticed. Had that illegal rider not been used Poole had lost. Rye House should be allowed to appear retrospectively.

 

The rule is abysmal, but, you can't ignore the rules that says you have to appeal sooner or you're breaking the rules yourself.

We used a illegal rider before, I know shocking to think we would do such a thing and his points were retrospectively taken away.

[scottyfan]

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?

It is the same in domestic meetings as GP meetings. Nick Morris (guesting for KK at Poole v Wolverhampton), was excluded in heat 13 for moving at the start having received a warning earlier in the meeting.