Mildenhall vs Plymouth 28/7

[Islander15]

How are Mildenhall using Leek as a guest for Kelly when Leek isn’t in a declared line-up?

[waco]

Ben Morley guests for Danny Ayres,,,,,,,Weather looks really dodgy for this one on sunday,,hopefully an early decision one way or the other will be made.....?

Edited July 27, 2019 by waco

[Richspeedway]

Yeah hope decision will be made early as looking to come over for this one.

[cityrebel]

Meeting off according to BSPA site.

[Racin Jason 72]

22 hours ago, Islander15 said:

How are Mildenhall using Leek as a guest for Kelly when Leek isn’t in a declared line-up?

I think he is termed as a unattached rider rather than a guest.  

So mildenhall can only use a unattached rider with a average less than Elliot Kelly. And Macaulay fits that criteria. Actually their averages are identical I believe 

[waco]

Sensible early call saves every one chancing travelling only to find it called off later.. A touch of the Len Silvers way how it should be done ....

Edited July 28, 2019 by waco

[Islander15]

7 hours ago, Racin Jason 72 said:

I think he is termed as a unattached rider rather than a guest.  

So mildenhall can only use a unattached rider with a average less than Elliot Kelly. And Macaulay fits that criteria. Actually their averages are identical I believe 

Only unattached riders with a 2.00 can come in at reserve to ‘guest’ or ‘replace’ a rider, whatever term you want to use. Leek has a 2.86 average which makes him ineligible. 

[Sings4Speedway]

15 hours ago, Islander15 said:

Only unattached riders with a 2.00 can come in at reserve to ‘guest’ or ‘replace’ a rider, whatever term you want to use. Leek has a 2.86 average which makes him ineligible. 

I thought that was the case (for a while) then im sure i saw in the regs a rider can come in as long as they are unattached and sub 3.00? However helpfully the regs are not available on the SCB site at the moment to check.

[Islander15]

1 hour ago, Sings4Speedway said:

I thought that was the case (for a while) then im sure i saw in the regs a rider can come in as long as they are unattached and sub 3.00? However helpfully the regs are not available on the SCB site at the moment to check.

If that new rule has been brought in unannounced, no other club has used it yet. 

[Sings4Speedway]

1 hour ago, Islander15 said:

If that new rule has been brought in unannounced, no other club has used it yet. 

I could (and quite likely am) 100% wrong but the regs are not available from the SCB site at the moment so cannot verify one way or another. 

[Islander15]

2 hours ago, Sings4Speedway said:

I could (and quite likely am) 100% wrong but the regs are not available from the SCB site at the moment so cannot verify one way or another. 

I don’t remember reading it when the regs were published online. 

[Sings4Speedway]

23 hours ago, Islander15 said:

I don’t remember reading it when the regs were published online. 

Regs are back and its as clear as ever. But definitely has up to 3.00 rather than 2.00 which makes zero sense whatsoever.

A Any absent rider on SGBP or SGBC duty G who must be in a NDL 1-7 or RR

B Absent #1 G or RR who must be in an NDL 1-7

C 1 absent rider 2-5 by MA RR (unless RR is already being used then it’s a G)

D 2 absent riders 2-5 by MA RR x 1, G x 1 at the Team Managers discretion

E Additional absent riders 2-5 by MA any rider not in an NDL Declaration and whose MA does not exceed NDL 3.00

F Absent 6 and/or 7 by MA any rider not in an NDL Declaration and whose MA does not exceed NDL 3.00

G No facility Any rider not in a NDL Declaration and whose MA does not exceed 3.00

[gazzac]

5 hours ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Regs are back and its as clear as ever. But definitely has up to 3.00 rather than 2.00 which makes zero sense whatsoever.

A Any absent rider on SGBP or SGBC duty G who must be in a NDL 1-7 or RR

B Absent #1 G or RR who must be in an NDL 1-7

C 1 absent rider 2-5 by MA RR (unless RR is already being used then it’s a G)

D 2 absent riders 2-5 by MA RR x 1, G x 1 at the Team Managers discretion

E Additional absent riders 2-5 by MA any rider not in an NDL Declaration and whose MA does not exceed NDL 3.00

F Absent 6 and/or 7 by MA any rider not in an NDL Declaration and whose MA does not exceed NDL 3.00

G No facility Any rider not in a NDL Declaration and whose MA does not exceed 3.00

 think I'll go and have a few  , might make sense of it then.

[Islander15]

8 hours ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Regs are back and its as clear as ever. But definitely has up to 3.00 rather than 2.00 which makes zero sense whatsoever.

A Any absent rider on SGBP or SGBC duty G who must be in a NDL 1-7 or RR

B Absent #1 G or RR who must be in an NDL 1-7

C 1 absent rider 2-5 by MA RR (unless RR is already being used then it’s a G)

D 2 absent riders 2-5 by MA RR x 1, G x 1 at the Team Managers discretion

E Additional absent riders 2-5 by MA any rider not in an NDL Declaration and whose MA does not exceed NDL 3.00

F Absent 6 and/or 7 by MA any rider not in an NDL Declaration and whose MA does not exceed NDL 3.00

G No facility Any rider not in a NDL Declaration and whose MA does not exceed 3.00

So that reads that a 2.something rider can ‘guest’!

But seeing as the rule change was never announced I wonder if they’ve just forgot to update this bit in the regs to 2.00 from 3.00 when the new minimum average came out. Also point G suggests that Leek could cover for someone in the main body with a lower average than him because it clearly should now say 2.00. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Islander15

[Sings4Speedway]

10 hours ago, Islander15 said:

So that reads that a 2.something rider can ‘guest’!

But seeing as the rule change was never announced I wonder if they’ve just forgot to update this bit in the regs to 2.00 from 3.00 when the new minimum average came out. Also point G suggests that Leek could cover for someone in the main body with a lower average than him because it clearly should now say 2.00. 

Whilst i think you are spot on an the rules haven't been changed it means that as they are currently in print its legal to do and actually reads as if you could replace a missing 2.00 with a 2.99 unattached rider as there is nothing about equal or lower MA in print.

However an unattached 2 point something rider cannot be called a "guest" as per the below a "guest" must be in a declared 1-7. Its a good job people don't actually take the rules seriously.

 19.11 A GUEST RIDER (G) replaces a regular Team Member subject to the following:

19.11.1 The Guest assumes the position and MA of the Missing rider.

19.11.2 The Guest must be in a current National Development League Team Declaration.

19.11.3 A rider may ride as a Guest (in an Official Meeting) at a Track only once in an 8-day (within that league) period unless he is replacing the Home Teams #1.

19.11.4 A Guest rider in a "double-header" shall count as one Meeting only.

19.11.5 The Guest’s own MA must be the same or lower than that of the Missing rider 

[teaboy279]

When Gilkes was injured at stoke, I was stood in the pits when chris hunt was told it had to be a 2.0 unattatched rider, ruling out Couzins O Keefe and a couple of others I think who had 2.something averages.

The rules at the time did say 3.0 unattatched riders to replace missing reserves. But assume this was a clerical error when they were published and should of read 2.0 riders.

[Sings4Speedway]

14 minutes ago, teaboy279 said:

When Gilkes was injured at stoke, I was stood in the pits when chris hunt was told it had to be a 2.0 unattatched rider, ruling out Couzins O Keefe and a couple of others I think who had 2.something averages.

The rules at the time did say 3.0 unattatched riders to replace missing reserves. But assume this was a clerical error when they were published and should of read 2.0 riders.

Whilst you are quite correct the problem stil exists that the rule book states something different than the rules being enforced. Surely rules cannot be enforced by opinion, the word or a couple of people or how it was remembered when it was discussed at the AGM but never written down. By that merit the need for a UK passport could be a clerical error and it should read must not have a UK passport making every NL rider ineligible (of course thats daft but if the rules cannot be recorded properly they are not worth the paper they are electronically displayed upon).

[Jayne]

9 hours ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Whilst you are quite correct the problem stil exists that the rule book states something different than the rules being enforced. Surely rules cannot be enforced by opinion, the word or a couple of people or how it was remembered when it was discussed at the AGM but never written down. By that merit the need for a UK passport could be a clerical error and it should read must not have a UK passport making every NL rider ineligible (of course thats daft but if the rules cannot be recorded properly they are not worth the paper they are electronically displayed upon).

Easy enough to check as the AGM is recorded so doesn't matter what was or wasn't written down. 

[Sings4Speedway]

12 hours ago, Jayne said:

Easy enough to check as the AGM is recorded so doesn't matter what was or wasn't written down. 

i bet that's quite a listen.

[Islander15]

14 hours ago, Jayne said:

Easy enough to check as the AGM is recorded so doesn't matter what was or wasn't written down. 

Should be made available online...