CUFC_Brummie Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Maybe I'm missing it as a relative young 'un and newbie in speedway terms, but the desire for more than one tactical substitute when the double points system was derided genuinely baffles me. I don't like either system, I haven't missed the double points in the NL this year in the slightest, but I think, having been proven on here numerous times, there is little difference in "fairness" between one double points ride and one tactical ride, the potential swing being bigger in the latter, and that the seemingly majority approval of this rule change (before getting into how many times) is 100% to do with nostalgia and nothing to do with the "integrity" of the sport. To then advocate there should be more than one of these a meeting if a team is far enough behind just seems utterly bemusing when you consider the (generally valid) arguments used against the double points system and the way it allowed meetings to become "artificially" closer. One of the arguments against double points was "how do you explain it to a newcomer without it sounding ridiculous?", which again, I don't disagree with the premise of that at all, but how on earth is it any more legitimate to say you can just throw out your best rider instead of your worst ones two or three times because you're so far behind? It's inherently more unfair and even more ridiculous than what was there before. It's a team event, I want to see the team, not just the best riders, that's what the GP is for. I would assume it's going to cost the clubs far more money too, AFAIK the "extra" points weren't paid to a rider on the double ride, but they sure as hell will be when they take this extra ride. One is the absolute max it should be, and they should scrap it all together after this season, but let's not pretend this is any better than it was before, if this wasn't "how it had been" the reaction would be entirely different. I just hope they don't bring it into the NL as well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GiveusaB Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Maybe I'm missing it as a relative young 'un and newbie in speedway terms, but the desire for more than one tactical substitute when the double points system was derided genuinely baffles me. I don't like either system, I haven't missed the double points in the NL this year in the slightest, but I think, having been proven on here numerous times, there is little difference in "fairness" between one double points ride and one tactical ride, the potential swing being bigger in the latter, and that the seemingly majority approval of this rule change (before getting into how many times) is 100% to do with nostalgia and nothing to do with the "integrity" of the sport. To then advocate there should be more than one of these a meeting if a team is far enough behind just seems utterly bemusing when you consider the (generally valid) arguments used against the double points system and the way it allowed meetings to become "artificially" closer. One of the arguments against double points was "how do you explain it to a newcomer without it sounding ridiculous?", which again, I don't disagree with the premise of that at all, but how on earth is it any more legitimate to say you can just throw out your best rider instead of your worst ones two or three times because you're so far behind? It's inherently more unfair and even more ridiculous than what was there before. It's a team event, I want to see the team, not just the best riders, that's what the GP is for. I would assume it's going to cost the clubs far more money too, AFAIK the "extra" points weren't paid to a rider on the double ride, but they sure as hell will be when they take this extra ride. One is the absolute max it should be, and they should scrap it all together after this season, but let's not pretend this is any better than it was before, if this wasn't "how it had been" the reaction would be entirely different. I just hope they don't bring it into the NL as well. Fair point ! However....imo....there is nothing worse than a boring one sided meeting? (especially if you're a neutral....) Which is why I'm in favour of 'tactical' advantages to keep me interested. BBuck's suggestion is most probably the best way forward......removing all the complicated nonsense in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) One of the arguments against double points was "how do you explain it to a newcomer without it sounding ridiculous?", which again, I don't disagree with the premise of that at all, but how on earth is it any more legitimate to say you can just throw out your best rider instead of your worst ones two or three times because you're so far behind? It's inherently more unfair and even more ridiculous than what was there before. Double points is ridiculous because gives one team the opportunity to score more points than the other. With tactical subs, the same amount of points are still on offer to both sides, so even putting aside the 'unfairness' of allowing a better rider to score those points, happiness is still 40-38 and having the score add up to 84 (or 46-44 and 90 in new money). Of course tactical subs are 'not fair' per se, but some tracks giving more advantage to the home team than others are also not fair, as are dubious assessed averages, along with all manner of other things in speedway. The problem with speedway though, is that it's basically 15 matches within a match, so if one team is dominant then that dominance tends to be magnified as the meeting progresses. Plus there's a fixed number of points available, so a meeting could potentially be decided by Heat 8 which would be pretty boring. Hence why artificial mechanisms are needed to try to keep the match interesting for as long as possible. I'd agree that tactical subs got taken to extremes in the past, especially with Heat 8 lending itself to double tactical subs, but with 3 minimum rides nowadays, you'd effectively be restricted to 3 tactical subs anyway. Edited November 30, 2017 by Humphrey Appleby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ommer Mon Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Its all about making things happen for me and 6 points always seemed right in the past. If a Team Manager pulls a masterstroke and wins the match, well done to him! It makes Team Managers work harder (rather than being relative 'passengers') and creates some controversy for discussion after the match. The problem with Tactical Rides is that it only happens once and by then the meeting is usually as good as over. Let's inject a bit of excitement and controversy, even down to the old heat 8 trick (and I know I'm not a supporter of that particularly) but 'dirty tricks' can only raise the interest levels in the sport. Its all about entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Najjer Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 It's a shame they didn't bring back the 'Golden Double Tac Sub' where riders could score double points, but had to work for it off 15 metres. Jason Doyle scoring a 21 point 6 ride maximum at Reading for Somerset in 2008 to send us through in the KO Cup is still one of my best memories of speedway when he came from last to first in heat 14. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GiveusaB Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 It's good to get CUFC's view from a relatively 'new' supporter perspective, but it seems 'us' older (46 years of following B'ham) supporters are in favour of game changers? Like 'Ommer Mon' states....'it's about entertainment' first and foremost.....we no doubt all want to win, but I'd swap a 65-13 for a 40-38 any day of the week ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Explaining why a rider finishing second scores more than the race winner is a lot harder than a mere (tactical) substitution. Most people are familiar with football and their regular use of it when removing a tired/underperforming team man with one more capable of contributing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Surely if tac subs are allowed why limit it to one, I think 8 points behind is about right with any amount of tac subs allowed if and when a team is 6, 8 or 10 behind, either it’s acceptable to make matches closer or it isn’t. If promoters cannot afford it then don’t have them it at all, really is the same with team building if a team wants to use build top heavy instead of strength in depth I don’t see a problem, limiting it to one rider over 8 is ridiculous enough but to run all the uk leagues on different rules, formats etc is madness and certainly doesn’t help the refs, who get it wrong enough as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Surely if tac subs are allowed why limit it to one, I think 8 points behind is about right with any amount of tac subs allowed if and when a team is 6, 8 or 10 behind, either it’s acceptable to make matches closer or it isn’t. If promoters cannot afford it then don’t have them it at all, really is the same with team building if a team wants to use build top heavy instead of strength in depth I don’t see a problem, limiting it to one rider over 8 is ridiculous enough but to run all the uk leagues on different rules, formats etc is madness and certainly doesn’t help the refs, who get it wrong enough as it is. Totally agree with that part of your Post. I wish they had gone down that route. I must be grateful for small mercies, that they saw the light over the Double Points issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinmauger Posted December 1, 2017 Report Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) Explaining why a rider finishing second scores more than the race winner is a lot harder than a mere (tactical) substitution. Most people are familiar with football and their regular use of it when removing a tired/underperforming team man with one more capable of contributing. This ^^. Not read entire thread (still at work !) but the BSPA AGM release says 'tactical substitutes', inferring more than one per match. As always time will tell.... Edited December 1, 2017 by Martin Mauger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted December 1, 2017 Report Share Posted December 1, 2017 This ^^. Not read entire thread (still at work !) but the BSPA AGM release says 'tactical substitutes', inferring more than one per match. As always time will tell.... Inferring one per Meeting for both Teams to me. Thus the plural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted December 1, 2017 Report Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) This ^^. Not read entire thread (still at work !) but the BSPA AGM release says 'tactical substitutes', inferring more than one per match. As always time will tell.... No inference needed. Gordon Pairman & Chris Louis have both confirmed that it's once only. Of course, in the crazy world of speedway regs this could change several times before next March. Edited December 1, 2017 by Alan Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinmauger Posted December 3, 2017 Report Share Posted December 3, 2017 Thanks for clarifying. So just the 1 Tac Sub, then still better than the unpopular TR.... 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.