racers and royals Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 They gave us three less races. Junior races as well as senior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve roberts Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 and eastbourne! ...not during their British League 2/National League days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted September 15, 2017 Report Share Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) Without both- we wouldn`t have speedway.How trite. And so representative of exactly the attitude that has got to where we are today. Edited September 15, 2017 by Grand Central 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) All correct. 1. For the promoters benefit. 2. For the riders benefit. Which are the only people to consider. No one else counts. Of course not. But to even suggest that fans interests absolutely override those of everything else is nonsense. It doesn't take a lot of working out to know that the additional costs of tactical substitutes over tactical rides would be huge - its not unreasonable to suggest that just one race could cost £500 or more. Which of us would advocate that the sport take on tens of thousands of pounds worth of additional costs at a point that most speedway tracks are loss making and some are on the brink ? Quite a few, it seems, and to me they are out of touch with reality. On cost grounds alone, the replacement of tactical substitutes with tactical rides was both correct and necessary. Having said that, I really haven't missed tactical changes in NL meetings this season so maybe there is a case for scrapping them altogether. Edited September 16, 2017 by Halifaxtiger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 I did not say that I wanted the old tac sub rules reinstated today. It's time has passed. I did not say that I wanted the fans interests to override everything else. The double point tactical ride was a ridiculous invention at its point of creation. And it still is today. The introduction of the match points system was a brilliant way of dealing with the issue of keeping interest in matches going. The 'Joker' should never have had a place in a serious sport. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 So in reflection Keep fixed gate positions Keep the 15 heat programme Keep the match points system to ensure matches go to the wire Premiership on Monday & Wednesday Championship on any other night All 3 UK divisions running the exact same heat formula and rules Rewrite the rule book And scrap the tactical ride. Sounds like a plan to me 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) So in reflection Keep fixed gate positions Keep the 15 heat programme Keep the match points system to ensure matches go to the wire Premiership on Monday & Wednesday Championship on any other night All 3 UK divisions running the exact same heat formula and rules Rewrite the rule book And scrap the tactical ride. Sounds like a plan to me I don't think Wednesday is an option for the PL is it? Edited September 16, 2017 by Grand Central Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 I don't think Wednesday is an option for the PL is it? Depends on which riders they tend to use Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 Of course not. But to even suggest that fans interests absolutely override those of everything else is nonsense. It doesn't take a lot of working out to know that the additional costs of tactical substitutes over tactical rides would be huge - its not unreasonable to suggest that just one race could cost £500 or more. Which of us would advocate that the sport take on tens of thousands of pounds worth of additional costs at a point that most speedway tracks are loss making and some are on the brink ? Quite a few, it seems, and to me they are out of touch with reality. On cost grounds alone, the replacement of tactical substitutes with tactical rides was both correct and necessary. Having said that, I really haven't missed tactical changes in NL meetings this season so maybe there is a case for scrapping them altogether. Are you coming around to my way of thinking HT? :approve: No Tactical Substitutes = No increase in Cost. No Tactical Rides = No increase in Cost. Result decided on the Track. Sounds good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 Are you coming around to my way of thinking HT? :approve: No Tactical Substitutes = No increase in Cost. No Tactical Rides = No increase in Cost. Result decided on the Track. Sounds good to me. Great until the home team are up by about 16 points after 6 heats and the match is then a non event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) Great until the home team are up by about 16 points after 6 heats and the match is then a non event.Daft example. In that particular case neither a tactical ride or old tac subs is going to make a match of it. . Edited September 16, 2017 by Grand Central 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 PERSONALLY would be in favour of the old tac sub rule or a slight variation of it. Gives the team managers some real choice over tactics. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch958 Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) no ts ht8, only used 2ce, rider can only be replaced 1ce? 1 guest only till its phased out altogether? how about use number 8s if both teams using rr for riders of similar calibre, e.g. heat leader, 2nd string? I don't know - just ideas Edited September 16, 2017 by ch958 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 (edited) ...and possibly a degree of sporting integrity, too. Do you watch football? Whatever you may think of the sport, I think we would all love speedway to enjoy just a small percentage of the popularity that football generates. Football seems to operate well enough with 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw. Can you imagine football awarding an extra league point if you don't lose by too much? Or giving the away team an extra point for a draw? The league tables in speedway are a mess. Also, if you are watching Man Utd against Bournemouth and United go 3-0 up, do you think it would be a good idea for Bournemouth's next goal to count double "to make it interesting"? Some may say you can't compare speedway to football - but I (obviously!) think you can - and should. Great post ..i doubt you would even see football have a champions league with teams that are not champions in it ..and look how easy the new offside rule is to understand . Sound arguments. So it is more cost effective to 1. Piss off a vast majority of the average punter with "It's a Knockout" rules. 2. Lose meetings because you have no real opportunity to win them. The old ts rule was much more Mickey mouse and also gave out more false results ..its the same as on most of these topics 55 to 80 year olds wanted the old rules back even thou the logic makes no sense ..wanted the old tac sub rule back is no better example . Edited September 16, 2017 by orion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted September 16, 2017 Report Share Posted September 16, 2017 PERSONALLY would be in favour of the old tac sub rule or a slight variation of it. Gives the team managers some real choice over tactics. Why do the need more choice over tactics? What's wrong with four riders on the track scoring 3-2-1 ? TM's can do reserve switches and reserve replacements, and be on the ball for what to do if someone touches the tapes, getting riders ready for the next heat so the fans are not left waiting, and chasing up riders when two minutes are on, instead of leaving it to the pit Marshall. As has already been said the tac sub and its variations have no basis in logic whatsoever. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve roberts Posted September 17, 2017 Report Share Posted September 17, 2017 (edited) Why do the need more choice over tactics? What's wrong with four riders on the track scoring 3-2-1 ? TM's can do reserve switches and reserve replacements, and be on the ball for what to do if someone touches the tapes, getting riders ready for the next heat so the fans are not left waiting, and chasing up riders when two minutes are on, instead of leaving it to the pit Marshall. As has already been said the tac sub and its variations have no basis in logic whatsoever. Why do the need more choice over tactics? What's wrong with four riders on the track scoring 3-2-1 ? TM's can do reserve switches and reserve replacements, and be on the ball for what to do if someone touches the tapes, getting riders ready for the next heat so the fans are not left waiting, and chasing up riders when two minutes are on, instead of leaving it to the pit Marshall. As has already been said the tac sub and its variations have no basis in logic whatsoever. As I've said previously it's all very interesting the ongoing debate of the T/S ruling. It was first introduced in 1955 and in all my years of attending speedway I never really remember people questioning the facility at the time...other than the odd grumble when it was utilised during heat eight. Perhaps people have become more subjective and/or cynical and question things more now but it was never really an issue in my experience...infact we used to enjoy pre-empting the T/M's next move...unlike the question of 'Guest Riders' and the 'Rider Replacement Rule' which often raised concerns and/or criticisms. Edited September 17, 2017 by steve roberts 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted September 17, 2017 Report Share Posted September 17, 2017 As I've said previously it's all very interesting the ongoing debate of the T/S ruling. It was first introduced in 1955 and in all my years of attending speedway I never really remember people questioning the facility at the time...other than the odd grumble when it was utilised during heat eight. Perhaps people have become more subjective and/or cynical and question things more now but it was never really an issue in my experience...infact we used to enjoy pre-empting the T/M's next move...unlike the question of 'Guest Riders' and the 'Rider Replacement Rule' which often raised concerns and/or criticisms. ECHO that Steve. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted September 17, 2017 Report Share Posted September 17, 2017 Are you coming around to my way of thinking HT? :approve: No Tactical Substitutes = No increase in Cost. No Tactical Rides = No increase in Cost. Result decided on the Track. Sounds good to me. As I say, I haven't missed it in NL meetings at all. Why do the need more choice over tactics? What's wrong with four riders on the track scoring 3-2-1 ? TM's can do reserve switches and reserve replacements, and be on the ball for what to do if someone touches the tapes, getting riders ready for the next heat so the fans are not left waiting, and chasing up riders when two minutes are on, instead of leaving it to the pit Marshall. As has already been said the tac sub and its variations have no basis in logic whatsoever. That's not true. The logic behind them is clear : they are there to try to make a meeting that would basically be dead in terms of a result more exciting. That's a very good reason to have them and I doubt if there is any regular attender who hasn't seen a meeting improved in terms of its actual quality after one has been used. Truth is, if you are going to have them tactical rides are better, partly - as Orion has pointed out - they affect results less and partly - but more importantly - they involve no additional cost, The question is more about whether there should be some sort of artificial method of changing results at all. My own view was undoubtedly that it should but, as I have mentioned, I really haven't missed them in the NL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted September 17, 2017 Report Share Posted September 17, 2017 Perhaps people have become more subjective and/or cynical and question things more now but it was never really an issue in my experience...infact we used to enjoy pre-empting the T/M's next move...unlike the question of 'Guest Riders' and the 'Rider Replacement Rule' which often raised concerns and/or criticisms. People tend to forget that speedway isn't football. Speedway is effectively 15 contests (or 13 in old money) in one, so where one team is dominant, the score differential will tend to be exaggerated. Plus unlike field sports, there's only so many points available so it's possible for a meeting to be effectively over halfway through. So some sort of way of mitigating one-sidedness is desirable in speedway, although the flaw with 'joker' type rules is they're somewhat bound to the heat schedule rather being able to use a better rider when a team needs to. If cost is an issue with tactical subs though, then you could award league points for different parts of a match as well as the overall result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted September 17, 2017 Report Share Posted September 17, 2017 (edited) As I've said previously it's all very interesting the ongoing debate of the T/S ruling. It was first introduced in 1955 and in all my years of attending speedway I never really remember people questioning the facility at the time...other than the odd grumble when it was utilised during heat eight. Perhaps people have become more subjective and/or cynical and question things more now but it was never really an issue in my experience...infact we used to enjoy pre-empting the T/M's next move...unlike the question of 'Guest Riders' and the 'Rider Replacement Rule' which often raised concerns and/or criticisms. I dont think ANYONE has ever said that the old tac sub rules were changed because of any distate on the part of the paying public. It has been stated time and again that the only reason it was changed was to save money. Personally I think it was a very sad change at the time as it changed the tactical element of a meeting drastcally, and detrimentally. By amending the regulations slightly at the time the 'cost' and 'Heat 8' issue could have been easily ameliorated. But the BSPA threw the baby out with the bath water and gave us the defective 'double point' bunkum in its place. Today it would no doubt be ridiculously expensive to reinstate the old ruling. But with the match point system now in place the need for atactical ride is hardly an issue. And lets face it the double up, guest, rider replacement clap trap we have today FAR EXCEEDS this entire TR thing anyway. Edited September 17, 2017 by Grand Central 2 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.