A Question For The Hardcore Stattos...

[False dawn]

One way of looking at the matter could be this. If a rider is programmed to take part in the meeting and is present at the track, with the intention to participate, to the extent that his machine is prepared ready to race and the rider is attired and ready to race but is then prevented from doing so, whether it be due to two minutes exclusions or a mishap on the way to the start (as in Dave's scenario), resulting in the rider being replaced by a reserve, then it counts as one meeting, no rides, no points. The reason for the reserve substitution(s) relates to events in the course of running the meeting and directly relate to the participation in events by the unfortunate rider.

[serious head on]

That can't be right. Say a rider is present, attired, with bikes etc. and then trips over his tool box and can't take part. Or he's called away due to a family emergencey. He didn't take part in the meeting by any sensible definition.

I think a rider has to be at the tapes and take part in a race to qualify as taking part. Even if he's the innocent party in a crash in his first race and the race is rerun and he can take no part. If he starts a race, regardless of what happens next, he took part in the meeting. Otherwise it's a "did not ride" and does not count as a meeting in his statistics.

Edited November 6, 2017 by False dawn

[norbold]

[serious head on]

That can't be right. Say a rider is present, attired, with bikes etc. and then trips over his tool box and can't take part. Or he's called away due to a family emergencey. He didn't take part in the meeting by any sensible definition.

I think a rider has to be at the tapes and take part in a race to qualify as taking part. Even if he's the innocent party in a crash in his first race and the race is rerun and he can take no part. If he starts a race, regardless of what happens next, he took part in the meeting. Otherwise it's a "did not ride" and does not count as a meeting in his statistics.

So, in the case Dave stated and in your hypotheticals, can the rider be replaced by a guest or can rider replacement be employed, rather than having to use reserves. (I know the likelihood of getting a guest at that sort of notice is less than minimal, but in theory...?)

[False dawn]

So, in the case Dave stated and in your hypotheticals, can the rider be replaced by a guest or can rider replacement be employed, rather than having to use reserves. (I know the likelihood of getting a guest at that sort of notice is less than minimal, but in theory...?)

In theory, yes. However the management committee has to sanction any facility do they not? They would, therefore, have to receive a formal application and give permission for such a facility to be granted before the referee could agree to the use of a guest or rider replacement.

How did we get into this?

[arnieg]

Surely McKinna's sick note would have to be presented to the referee before the start of the meeting - but as he wasn't injured until proceeding to the start in heat 4 that would not be possible, so I'd say no guest.

 

Given he appeared on track I'd credit McKinna with an appearance. But if instead he'd tripped over in the pits on the way to mounting his bike prior to heat 4 then I'd be inclined to say no appearance.

[chunky]

This SHOULD be a no-brainer, but it IS speedway we are talking about!

 

Just throwing this out there... A rider is credited with an appearance if he is at the track, and ready to ride, okay? If this happens once, it could happen again, right? Therefore, a rider can be considered an "ever-present" without even starting a race!

 

Only in speedway... 😀

 

Steve

[daveallan81]

Kenny was 4th in Tigers' averages at the time so no rider replacement facility was available. As it was a National League fixture, a guest wasn't an option. There were at least 4 home riders in waiting, 2 of whom had league racing experience, but as the match had started I doubt whether the option to change the line-up was available.

[norbold]

.....as the match had started I doubt whether the option to change the line-up was available.

In that case doesn't that mean that It should count as a meeting for Kenny?

[daveallan81]

In that case doesn't that mean that It should count as a meeting for Kenny?

 

There's clearly an argument for both sides. As it stands, only the yearbook credits him with the match. Three other sources do not. Bryan Seery is the only one of the three contributors (the other two being Dave Welch and Ian Steel) who receives a credit in the yearbook. If Bryan compiled the figures for the yearbook then he clearly changed his stance since the Speedway Star review figures were submitted.

 

It should also be noted that the Speedway Star match report, while making mention of McKinna's withdrawal, does not include him in the scorers.

 

Similar to the Jim Beaton example I gave earlier, at Middlesbrough in 1979 Steve Lawson blew up his engine in the warm-up and withdrew from the meeting. He receives no credit for the match and no entry in the yearbook. The significant difference where McKinna is concerned is he at least got as far as being on track. Perhaps that is the dividing line.

 

An interesting example from 1978 - Reidar Eide arrived late at Wimbledon, shortly before the start of heat 12. He was placed on 2 minutes but failed to take to the track and was excluded. He isn't credited with the match or any score in the yearbook.

 

I am still leaning towards no match.

[Tsunami]

I remember when the rule book was simpler and unambiguous. The 1931 rules could be summarised in a handful of pages of a pocket book. In the 1950s the rule book was still reasonably straightforward, but has got progressively more complicated. The more rules there are the more they can be manipulated.

I would have thought the opposite was true. The more rules the stricter the controls, as long as they don't contradict each other.

Let's say the bikes rules just said a 500cc engine on a two wheeled bike. Just imagine what some bikes would look like and what advantages taken with monster bikes. They would still be within the rules, and therefore not manipulating anything, but the results would be laughable to speedway fans and others. Far better to have more clear rules appertaining to everything, so less or no fiddle factor.

With situations like the above and 0 points and 0 rides, quite frankly I don't think rule makers have enough time on their hands to give rulings on anything and everything that could happen during a meeting. History would suggest the main rules were once thought to be sensible, but after misuse, the opportunity to cheat has been closed, but possibly then in conflict with another hastily rule introduced to patch over a similar situation.

I think the rule book will always be large, and suggestions like having rules on one side of a bit of A4 paper are incredibly naive.

[Guest compost]

It looks to me that the crux of the matter is whether or not the rider is under the 2 minute warning. A rider excluded under the 2 minutes limit would normally have a 1 for the match and a 0 for that ride. If a rider is excluded from ALL of their heats (or a number 8 entered in a heat but excluded under 2 minutes) how would you indicate that stats wise ? The way I would show it would 0 rides etc – but by entering a 0 here would mean that the rider was ‘at the match’ so the match total would be increased by 1 (this reasoning allows a rider injured in their first race and unable to take part in the rest of meeting to be shown, for stats purposes, that they were in the match i.e. 1 match, 0 rides etc). The alternative would be to show a DNR for the match, which whilst it would be literally correct, would not convey what happened – that the rider made a bona-fide attempt to ride but was unable to.

 

In Dave’s case it is unclear whether the rider was under the 2 minute warning so a reasonable treatment would be to not allow him the match. But ... you could argue that there was an implied 2 minute warning and that he should have the match – he was on the track and there may have been other competitiors in that heat also out on the track at the same time so you could argue that they were all, so to speak, under starters orders. Added : I presume it is not known if other heat riders were also out on the track at the time or if the pits gate had been closed ?

 

The real issue is the reporting of the incident. If there is enough detail to make an informed decision then the result is usually obvious but in this instance there doesn’t appear to be though from what Dave has added I would probably give him the match.

 

In the Reidar Eide case strictly speaking there should be no difference between him failing to meet the 2 minutes than in the case of any other rider failing to meet the time limit. The issue then becomes one of did he really try to meet the time limit ? So maybe he should be credited with the match ? Maybe the reason why failing to meet the time limit results in basically a null ride for the rider needs to be reviewed after all why are such rides not counted (is it to do with the way riders are paid – excluded under 2 minutes and they don’t get heat money) ?

 

Actually I’ve realised I should apologies to Norbold as this was along the lines of his treatment stated earlier.

Edited November 7, 2017 by compost

[Fromafar]

One way of looking at the matter could be this. If a rider is programmed to take part in the meeting and is present at the track, with the intention to participate, to the extent that his machine is prepared ready to race and the rider is attired and ready to race but is then prevented from doing so, whether it be due to two minutes exclusions or a mishap on the way to the start (as in Dave's scenario), resulting in the rider being replaced by a reserve, then it counts as one meeting, no rides, no points. The reason for the reserve substitution(s) relates to events in the course of running the meeting and directly relate to the participation in events by the unfortunate rider.

I would agree with that.