JCookie Posted October 12, 2018 Report Share Posted October 12, 2018 Classic speedway overreaction, ban him for a meeting or 2 fair enough (which is probably all he'll miss anyway) but why this whole season ban thing? How many speedway representatives get banned for the rest of the season when there's actually only 2/3 meetings left? Looks daft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted October 12, 2018 Report Share Posted October 12, 2018 (edited) Not really much of a penalty considering what is left of the season. A referee not knowing the rules is in my view something that should be dealt with as a serious issue. It is their job to know the rule book inside out. In this instance, we do not know if his mistake would have made any difference to the final score of that meeting. Fortunately, what we do know is that it wouldn't have affected the overall result. I would assume that he was able to put forward his case as part of the investigation and I don't see a problem in him being informed of the result in writing by way of an email. Edited October 12, 2018 by Aces51 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmon Posted October 12, 2018 Report Share Posted October 12, 2018 Going by SS report no evidence of Dishington putting forward is evidence is shown. Who has put forward his case. As the Referee's Association appear to be missing. In this one time for a Trade Union to get involved. Football wise Prospect appear to represent Referees in both England and Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted October 12, 2018 Report Share Posted October 12, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Aces51 said: Not really much of a penalty considering what is left of the season. A referee not knowing the rules is in my view something that should be dealt with as a serious issue. It is their job to know the rule book inside out. In this instance, we do not know if his mistake would have made any difference to the final score of that meeting. Fortunately, what we do know is that it wouldn't have affected the overall result. I would assume that he was able to put forward his case as part of the investigation and I don't see a problem in him being informed of the result in writing by way of an email. Surely the team manager must accept blame for not knowing the rules and if he does then he should forcibly insist the referee checks before proceeding. I`m sure that in this instance Worrall was eligible for heat 15 as the rule book was as printed as well as eligible under the supp reg changes to the rule. i don`t remember the ref who cocked up when Rossister failed to give a rider(Musielak) his 3 minimum rides in a home match being suspended for allowing it. Edit Rossister`s/referee`s cock-up ironically also involved Belle Vue September 2017 Edited October 12, 2018 by racers and royals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted October 12, 2018 Report Share Posted October 12, 2018 Not ironic at all unfortunately. If refs were suspended for wrongly calling against Belle Vue, we’d run out of refs pretty quick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r8gdp Posted October 12, 2018 Report Share Posted October 12, 2018 Will the ref from mondays get a ban for the wrong call in excluding parm toff lol 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted October 15, 2018 Report Share Posted October 15, 2018 On 10/12/2018 at 12:18 PM, Aces51 said: Not really much of a penalty considering what is left of the season. A referee not knowing the rules is in my view something that should be dealt with as a serious issue. It is their job to know the rule book inside out. In this instance, we do not know if his mistake would have made any difference to the final score of that meeting. Fortunately, what we do know is that it wouldn't have affected the overall result. I would assume that he was able to put forward his case as part of the investigation and I don't see a problem in him being informed of the result in writing by way of an email. That's not fair on the referee's. The people writing the rules don't even understand them and interpret them differently. What chance to the referee's have to be 100% accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted October 15, 2018 Report Share Posted October 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Daniel Smith said: That's not fair on the referee's. The people writing the rules don't even understand them and interpret them differently. What chance to the referee's have to be 100% accurate. That particular rule isn't difficult to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted October 15, 2018 Report Share Posted October 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, Aces51 said: That particular rule isn't difficult to understand. It may not be, but the pressures of the situation can throw people off. There's no sport in the world where the referee's get everything 100% accurate. There's nobody who can interpret every rule 100% accurate. Interpretation is the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted October 15, 2018 Report Share Posted October 15, 2018 11 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said: It may not be, but the pressures of the situation can throw people off. There's no sport in the world where the referee's get everything 100% accurate. There's nobody who can interpret every rule 100% accurate. Interpretation is the rule. Utter rubbish !!!!! you tell me how this supp reg can be interpreted anyway other than written. 15.14.3 Nominations must be a “Qualified Rider”, as follows – a) Any Rider in the 1 – 5 by MA, (subject to them not already having taken 7 rides). In addition a reserve (6th and 7th by MA) who is in the top 3 points scorers (inc bonus points) from their programmed rides, (subject to them not already having taken 7 rides) (NB. No facility is available allowing another rider to be elevated to the qualified list if any of qualified riders are unavailable due to being withdrawn or has no equipment) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted October 15, 2018 Report Share Posted October 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, racers and royals said: Utter rubbish !!!!! you tell me how this supp reg can be interpreted anyway other than written. 15.14.3 Nominations must be a “Qualified Rider”, as follows – a) Any Rider in the 1 – 5 by MA, (subject to them not already having taken 7 rides). In addition a reserve (6th and 7th by MA) who is in the top 3 points scorers (inc bonus points) from their programmed rides, (subject to them not already having taken 7 rides) (NB. No facility is available allowing another rider to be elevated to the qualified list if any of qualified riders are unavailable due to being withdrawn or has no equipment) That version looks very different to the actual updated rule book. Have you amended the above personally?? 15.14.3 Nominations must be a ‘qualified’ Rider, determined as either: a) A Rider in the top 3 of that Meeting’s Team by current MA (NB. A Team missing one of the top 3 and using the RR facility) may use the 4th highest Rider by MA. or b) A Top 5 points scorer (counting the 4 x programmed rides only, including bonus points). Excluding any rider who has already taken 7 rides or if one of those top 5 point scorers has already taken 7 rides then the 6th highest points scorer becomes a ‘qualified’ rider. (NB: No facility is available allowing another rider to be elevated to the qualified list if any of those top 5 points scorers are unavailable due to be withdrawn or has no equipment). _____________ There is interpretation to be had as R/R rides don't count as 'programmed rides'. The referee could have mistaken all of Bellago's rides as programmed which would have pushed Worrall to 6th in the meeting score due to his 2+1 was as an R/R. This giving Worrall the same score as Bellago. The fact that Worrall retired from a heat render his 4 points worse than Bellago's 4 points better because he completed his rides. The referee may have interpreted the rules correctly but marked the programmed rides incorrectly. An easy mistake to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted October 15, 2018 Report Share Posted October 15, 2018 Just now, Daniel Smith said: That version looks very different to the actual updated rule book. Have you amended the above personally?? 15.14.3 Nominations must be a ‘qualified’ Rider, determined as either: a) A Rider in the top 3 of that Meeting’s Team by current MA (NB. A Team missing one of the top 3 and using the RR facility) may use the 4th highest Rider by MA. or b) A Top 5 points scorer (counting the 4 x programmed rides only, including bonus points). Excluding any rider who has already taken 7 rides or if one of those top 5 point scorers has already taken 7 rides then the 6th highest points scorer becomes a ‘qualified’ rider. (NB: No facility is available allowing another rider to be elevated to the qualified list if any of those top 5 points scorers are unavailable due to be withdrawn or has no equipment). _____________ There is interpretation to be had as R/R rides don't count as 'programmed rides'. The referee could have mistaken all of Bellago's rides as programmed which would have pushed Worrall to 6th in the meeting score due to his 2+1 was as an R/R. This giving Worrall the same score as Bellago. The fact that Worrall retired from a heat render his 4 points worse than Bellago's 4 points better because he completed his rides. The referee may have interpreted the rules correctly but marked the programmed rides incorrectly. An easy mistake to make. That isn`t the updated rule book you are looking at- you are looking at the 2018 rule book without the amendments- i am quoting SR 1804 dated 22nd March 2018. which along with all the other amendments make up the current rule book- why the SCB cannot amend the original PDF pages so that the rule book can be checked in one place is beyond me !!!! What are you looking at ?? 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.