The C word ( chaos )

[Grachan]

I would say that 5 minutes of standing around watching a tractor and listening to "Now that's what I call music volume one" has a more negative impact than any rules anyway.

[steve roberts]

When I last saw a rule book...and that's years ago now...much of it was filled with technical rulings aimed at the machinery and what was deemed legal or what wasn't. Forgot the number of meetings I was present at when protests went in about tyres, size of carbs, engines and silencers for example which held up proceedings or even resulted in results being altered after the event.

Personally I was never interested in the machinery/technical side of the sport only the racing and arguments over a 'used' or 'new' edge on a tyre grew tiresome.

Obviously with any motorised sport there has to be rules governing the machinery whether two or four wheeled but as bikes became more sophisticated I guess more potential loopholes needed to be closed.

[uk_martin]

5 hours ago, PHILIPRISING said:

BECAUSE there are far too many rules, many of which contradict one another. Rules should be about what you can do, not what you cannot.,

How's this for a new rule book then?

Rule 1 - Poole can cheat.

Rule 2 - Everyone else can play by the rules.

Rule 3 - There can be no more rules.

[PHILIPRISING]

2 hours ago, SCB said:

That’s just not true. People making up fake rules that eventually people think are true confuses things.

Only this week we’ve had the “fact” on here, twitter and Facebook that Doyle only rides here so he can get a visa to ride in Poland. It’s now become some sort of fact but it’s not even for a grain of truth. Someone posted it in an authoritative way and now it’s “true”. Happens all the time.

Which rules contradict? Should be easy for you (or anyone) to answer because there’s too many of them apparently.

WHAT has Doyle's visa arrangements got to do with speedway's rulebook? Many years ago the great Ian Thomas said he could tear up the rulebook and rewrite them on a sheet of paper. It doesn't have to be complicated. The more complicated they are the more people will have different interpretations. 

Edited December 28, 2017 by PHILIPRISING

[SCB]

2 hours ago, steve roberts said:

When I last saw a rule book...and that's years ago now...much of it was filled with technical rulings aimed at the machinery and what was deemed legal or what wasn't. Forgot the number of meetings I was present at when protests went in about tyres, size of carbs, engines and silencers for example which held up proceedings or even resulted in results being altered after the event.

Personally I was never interested in the machinery/technical side of the sport only the racing and arguments over a 'used' or 'new' edge on a tyre grew tiresome.

Obviously with any motorised sport there has to be rules governing the machinery whether two or four wheeled but as bikes became more sophisticated I guess more potential loopholes needed to be closed.

You're right. 90% of the rulebook is about technical stuff that will NEVER bother the fans.

You're wrong in the number of meetings that are held up due to protests due to tyres, carbs and engines. I become a regular attendee in 1997 (having been an ad-hoc fans since my birth in 1984) and honestly cannot think of a single time a meeting has been held up due to issues over tyres, carbs or silencers (or similar). The ONLY time I can remember was Poole on a SKy meeting protesting about Jesper B Monberg (of Peterborough?) carb in about 2005, the only other one I can think of and it was on TV, nor was I there,  was Kings Lynn in about 2003 having Andy Moores engine checked, which it was, coming back as 498cc so Sheffield putting Andys name in the programme for the home meeting the week after as "Andy '498cc' Moore". They're so rare these protests I remember two of them from 15ish years ago!

The actual rules the fans care about - guests, r/r, averages, reserves, points limits cover about 6 pages and as long as you're not mentally deficient I don't think most of them are that bad. There a couple that are a bit dodgy.

36 minutes ago, PHILIPRISING said:

WHAT has Doyle's visa arrangements got to do with speedway's rulebook? Many years ago the great Ian Thomas said he could tear up the rulebook and rewrite them on a sheet of paper. It doesn't have to be complicated. The more complicated they are the more people will have different interpretations. 

The Doyle visa thing was just pointing out how "facts" about rules become "fact" when they're nothing of the sort. Fans make things up all the time and people fall for it.

Anyway, back to the point, you said, and I quote, "there are far too many rules, many of which contradict one another" so give us an example, go on, just one example of a contradiction. Until you do I'll call you out as a bullrubbishter. Because you know what, I could quote MANY examples of that. Remember environmentally controlled stored shale that turned out to be pilled up and covered in a plastic sheet on Newport docks? 

[steve roberts]

8 hours ago, SCB said:

You're right. 90% of the rulebook is about technical stuff that will NEVER bother the fans.

You're wrong in the number of meetings that are held up due to protests due to tyres, carbs and engines. I become a regular attendee in 1997 (having been an ad-hoc fans since my birth in 1984) and honestly cannot think of a single time a meeting has been held up due to issues over tyres, carbs or silencers (or similar). The ONLY time I can remember was Poole on a SKy meeting protesting about Jesper B Monberg (of Peterborough?) carb in about 2005, the only other one I can think of and it was on TV, nor was I there,  was Kings Lynn in about 2003 having Andy Moores engine checked, which it was, coming back as 498cc so Sheffield putting Andys name in the programme for the home meeting the week after as "Andy '498cc' Moore". They're so rare these protests I remember two of them from 15ish years ago!

The actual rules the fans care about - guests, r/r, averages, reserves, points limits cover about 6 pages and as long as you're not mentally deficient I don't think most of them are that bad. There a couple that are a bit dodgy.

The Doyle visa thing was just pointing out how "facts" about rules become "fact" when they're nothing of the sort. Fans make things up all the time and people fall for it.

Anyway, back to the point, you said, and I quote, "there are far too many rules, many of which contradict one another" so give us an example, go on, just one example of a contradiction. Until you do I'll call you out as a bullrubbishter. Because you know what, I could quote MANY examples of that. Remember environmentally controlled stored shale that turned out to be pilled up and covered in a plastic sheet on Newport docks? 

...with respect I go back to 1972 just prior to the four valve revolution which, in itself, caused suspicion but I saw the development of the silencers and all that caused with riders threatening to pull out of meetings and some not conforming with the requirements. I remember meetings at White City that were threatened due to protests flying around.

I recall the 1981 Spring Classic Meeting at Wimbledon (it was televised if I remember?) when there was a dispute over Ole Olsen's either silencer or tyre and the result was changed and re-declared and then later again well into the season. Ellesmere Port had a result changed well into the off season (1985) after a meeting that had taken place much earlier in the year over a tyre issue. These are just two examples taken off the top of my head.

The one tyre per meeting caused problems with accusations being made suggesting that some riders were swapping tyres (Mitch Shirra recounts a story in an interview) and referees being called down to the pits to intervene thus holding up proceedings. Thankfully common sense did begin to prevail but there were problems initially and supporters were left shaking their heads sometimes but I agree that most fans are only really interested in the non technical rules...I was just highlighting past issues that undermined the smooth running of some meetings during this period.

Edited December 29, 2017 by steve roberts

[Grand Central]

19 hours ago, PHILIPRISING said:

BECAUSE there are far too many rules, many of which contradict one another. Rules should be about what you can do, not what you cannot.,

I'll informed nonsense yet again.

[SCB]

5 hours ago, steve roberts said:

...with respect I go back to 1972 just prior to the four valve revolution which, in itself, caused suspicion but I saw the development of the silencers and all that caused with riders threatening to pull out of meetings and some not conforming with the requirements. I remember meetings at White City that were threatened due to protests flying around.

I recall the 1981 Spring Classic Meeting at Wimbledon (it was televised if I remember?) when there was a dispute over Ole Olsen's either silencer or tyre and the result was changed and re-declared and then later again well into the season. Ellesmere Port had a result changed well into the off season (1985) after a meeting that had taken place much earlier in the year over a tyre issue. These are just two examples taken off the top of my head.

The one tyre per meeting caused problems with accusations being made suggesting that some riders were swapping tyres (Mitch Shirra recounts a story in an interview) and referees being called down to the pits to intervene thus holding up proceedings. Thankfully common sense did begin to prevail but there were problems initially and supporters were left shaking their heads sometimes but I agree that most fans are only really interested in the non technical rules...I was just highlighting past issues that undermined the smooth running of some meetings during this period.

Right, so the problem with the rules in 2017/2018 is stuff that happened in the 1970s and 1980s?

FFS!

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

In recent history regulation updates re protests and when the can be made about line ups and facilities etc have been positive with set timescales added to prevent it happening as the meeting is about to start and avoid the need to amend results

It shows that where there us a will 'loopholes' can be simply and effectively closed

The biggest issue now is around averages and assessments which could almost as easily be dealt with

The difference IMO is there does not seem to be the will to do it as all involved want to benefit from a ringer where they can....

[moxey63]

Promoters put their hard-earned money into the sport... and then make a total cock-up of it. Would you trust them with your money or your sport?

[steve roberts]

49 minutes ago, SCB said:

Right, so the problem with the rules in 2017/2018 is stuff that happened in the 1970s and 1980s?

FFS!

Never implied that in my posts.

[Humphrey Appleby]

On 28/12/2017 at 10:42 PM, PHILIPRISING said:

Many years ago the great Ian Thomas said he could tear up the rulebook and rewrite them on a sheet of paper. It doesn't have to be complicated. The more complicated they are the more people will have different interpretations. 

I very much doubt you could write the rules of most sports on a sheet of paper (unless it was a very large sheet and writing was very small), especially a sport that caters for multiple formats. 'Tear up the rulebook' is just one of those silly mantras that gets bandied about by speedway people, and you of all people should know better than to repeat that.

Whether or not there should be points limits, guests, averages and the like is one debate, but whilst they're deemed to be necessary by the sport, then there's always going to need to be a degree of complexity in the regulations. If there was nothing written down about these things, it would be total chaos and even more open to ad-hoc and biased decision-making. 

'Four riders doing four laps' would frankly get pretty boring pretty quickly if there wasn't any structure to it. That's why the sport quickly evolved from ad-hoc scratch races to team events. 

And in reality, it's really only the team building stuff and certain technical elements that are highly contentious. The rest of the rulebook, whilst it might be better written, isn't controversial. 

Edited December 31, 2017 by Humphrey Appleby

[SCB]

59 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

And in reality, it's really only the team building stuff and certain technical elements that are highly contentious. The rest of the rulebook, whilst it might be better written, isn't controversial. 

The very fact that people people harp on about complex rules and contradictions but are never able to list any says it all. It's a lie, a myth, a red herring.

What is an issue is the wilful ignorance of the rules by the powers that be and the way any rule can be ignored if someone with enough power doesn't like it. Or the fact that some teams have signed riders on an old average from 2018 while others have signed riders on a converted average from another league thats more recent but nobody in power is explaining why. Maybe if the BSPA twitter had not blocked so many people we could ask them, but then asking them questions is a blockable offence it would seem!

[stevehone]

On 12/28/2017 at 8:16 PM, SCB said:

 

Which rules contradict? Should be easy for you (or anyone) to answer because there’s too many of them apparently.

riders with a PL average over 6 can't ride in the CL?

[Baldyman]

They couldn't..then they could...now they can't again....a I have a sneaky feeling in an week or so time...they will be able to again.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

25 minutes ago, Baldyman said:

They couldn't..then they could...now they can't again....a I have a sneaky feeling in an week or so time...they will be able to again.

I have no doubt it will change....

[SCB]

1 hour ago, stevehone said:

riders with a PL average over 6 can't ride in the CL?

What does in contradict? You could argue it's unfair. I'd argue it's stupid that if you ride Championship and Premiership and get a Premiership average over 6 its unfair you can double up/drop down but a rider who only rode Premiership and averaged 6.01 can't but it's not contradictory.

[stevehone]

22 hours ago, SCB said:

What does in contradict? You could argue it's unfair. I'd argue it's stupid that if you ride Championship and Premiership and get a Premiership average over 6 its unfair you can double up/drop down but a rider who only rode Premiership and averaged 6.01 can't but it's not contradictory.

the contradiction is that some with an average over 6 can ride in the CL, others can't

[BWitcher]

19 hours ago, stevehone said:

the contradiction is that some with an average over 6 can ride in the CL, others can't

It's not a contradiction as you are only quoting half of the rule.

[E I Addio]

1 hour ago, BWitcher said:

It's not a contradiction as you are only quoting half of the rule.

It’s quite amazing that Philip Rising tells us there are “many” rules that contradict one another but neither he nor anyone else can name them.