Eastbourne v Glasgow Semi Final

[arnieg]

15 minutes ago, cityrebel said:

I actually attended this meeting 9 days ago, and saw the incidents first hand, right in front of me. I can't believe this topic has stretched to 51 pages. It was consigned to my memory banks a couple of days later.

The only people who come out of this with any credit are the SCB, who acted quickly and have handed down punishments that are stiff enough to make the protagonists think twice before behaving so stupidly again, but not so severe as to disrupt the remainder of the season.

[screm]

1 hour ago, arnieg said:

The only people who come out of this with any credit are the SCB, who acted quickly and have handed down punishments that are stiff enough to make the protagonists think twice before behaving so stupidly again, but not so severe as to disrupt the remainder of the season.

Absolutely the rider's have been punished, the SCB have investigated and acted quickly.

What's not to like

[woofers]

17 hours ago, Chris116 said:

The trouble with giving 10 or 12 day bans is that a club with two home meetings in that time can flood the track and the referee says it is not fit for racing so the rider does not in fact miss any meetings while another team may have four or five away meetings in that time which the rider has to miss. 

The bans should have been one/two/three home and one/two/three away matchs so that they all miss the same number of meetings. 

Far too sensible for the SCB and speedway.

As it stands I think Kennett misses 3 away matches for Eastbourne and 1 home for Ipswich, whilst Cook misses 1 home and 2 away for Glasgow, and 3 home matches for Kings Lynn.

[woofers]

40 minutes ago, screm said:

Absolutely the rider's have been punished, the SCB have investigated and acted quickly.

What's not to like

That it’s time related and not match or fixture related.

As an aside, it’s good to see that the SCB can react within a reasonable timescale. Perhaps they could publish their findings into their “full investigation” of last years cancelled Eastbourne v Mildenhall match - 10 months and counting.

[GS550]

21 hours ago, Chris116 said:

The bans should have been one/two/three home and one/two/three away matchs so that they all miss the same number of meetings. 

Does seem to be the fair(er) way to do it.  Does football not also usually ban for a certain number of matches, usually anyway e.g. 2 matches, 3 matches (excluding the bigger scale stuff of course such as the Frenchman that made the quote about fishing boats and seagulls, and the Uruguayan with cannibalistic tendencies).

Then there's the doubling up / doubling down factor and how is that best apportioned.  It opens up another question i.e. if the punishment is upon the rider and for that matter the club he was representing at the time of the offending incident then why should his other team riding in a different league be affected, just a passing thought, don't want to be the catalyst for another 20 pages, let's just pretend I never even mentioned it.

[ruffdiamond]

34 minutes ago, BigBoaby said:

Does seem to be the fair(er) way to do it.  Does football not also usually ban for a certain number of matches, usually anyway e.g. 2 matches, 3 matches (excluding the bigger scale stuff of course such as the Frenchman that made the quote about fishing boats and seagulls, and the Uruguayan with cannibalistic tendencies).

Then there's the doubling up / doubling down factor and how is that best apportioned.  It opens up another question i.e. if the punishment is upon the rider and for that matter the club he was representing at the time of the offending incident then why should his other team riding in a different league be affected, just a passing thought, don't want to be the catalyst for another 20 pages, let's just pretend I never even mentioned it.

A suppose it's a grey area, as these guys are basically self employed. In horse racing, jockeys get banned for days/weeks and, not necessarily for whom they are representing. I would imagine that they are also self employed.

[alang]

If,according to SCB, possible violent acts/assaults took place based on witnesses  and video evidence why are police not involved or is violence no longer a crime

[ruffdiamond]

9 minutes ago, alang said:

If,according to SCB, possible violent acts/assaults took place based on witnesses  and video evidence why are police not involved or is violence no longer a crime

Unless the police were involved at the time, I would assume it would be upto the victims to report it to the police,,, which they could/may be doing.

[Gavan]

Ive been going to speedway for 38 years and ive never seen a marshall standing out in the middle of a track with a red flag

Ive seen riders either buried in the fence or lying prostrate on the track and the red lights go on and the marshalls stand on the infield with flags out

A red flag does not mean stop...........do riders stop at a red flag? No, they slow down expecting an incident to have occured. 

Cook was slowing and would no doubt have either left the track or stopped completely

Im not condoning what Cook did next........but its absurd that neither the marshall or either Dugard have been reprimanded

[GS550]

12 minutes ago, Gavan said:

Ive been going to speedway for 38 years and ive never seen a marshall standing out in the middle of a track with a red flag

Ive seen riders either buried in the fence or lying prostrate on the track and the red lights go on and the marshalls stand on the infield with flags out

A red flag does not mean stop...........do riders stop at a red flag? No, they slow down expecting an incident to have occured. 

Cook was slowing and would no doubt have either left the track or stopped completely

Marshall with red flag standing out in middle of track....   I've seen one standing out into the track with a yellow one    (as per my post a few pages ago, lol)

Cook was slowing down as you say....   and of course as we all know speedway bikes have no brakes.

Er, just sayin.  Apologies in advance. 

 

The previous post. Er, page 40 it was, sorry, they don't have 'Chapter' tags yet for this thread.

Edited August 12, 2019 by BigBoaby

[mac101]

The Only time you see a marshal with a flag on the track at the pit gate is when they want the riders off the track after practice sighting lap 

[Lioness]

So you are saying the flag marshall was right mac101?

[Hodgy]

22 hours ago, hammer1969 said:

The only thing that started this whole sorry affair was Craig Cook and his attitude and the only thing wrong with the track was the holes Cook and his team mates dug in it after the referee had already inspected it and passed it.

Out of interest, why would they do this? 

Also, would like to know what words were used pre-meeting. Nothing wrong with building an atmosphere as long as it doesn’t get too personal. 

 

[hammer1969]

39 minutes ago, Hodgy said:

Out of interest, why would they do this? 

Also, would like to know what words were used pre-meeting. Nothing wrong with building an atmosphere as long as it doesn’t get too personal. 

 

Why would they do it?  Only they can answer that, the track was fit according to the ref.  They had a strong team, Eastbourne seemed to be the underdogs, Glasgow hadnt even changed up to 10 minutes before the start, i feel they threw away a possible win and all the handbags regardless of the talk of who did what and who was right or wrong spoilt what should have been a good meeting.

[mac101]

56 minutes ago, Lioness said:

So you are saying the flag marshall was right mac101?

No as there was no practice or sighting lap Craig went straight from parade and was heading back to the pits anyway 

[jenga]

1 hour ago, mac101 said:

No as there was no practice or sighting lap Craig went straight from parade and was heading back to the pits anyway 

Shirley that was the fault of the  three Glasgow riders  by not sticking to the unwritten rule of waiting until all the intros and other stuff were over and done with ? and stop using my words . ...(SIGHTING  LAP ). get your own script writer . 

Edited August 12, 2019 by jenga

[Hodgy]

2 hours ago, hammer1969 said:

Why would they do it?  Only they can answer that, the track was fit according to the ref.  They had a strong team, Eastbourne seemed to be the underdogs, Glasgow hadnt even changed up to 10 minutes before the start, i feel they threw away a possible win and all the handbags regardless of the talk of who did what and who was right or wrong spoilt what should have been a good meeting.

Yes agree, thought Glasgow weren’t out of it. Appears they really didn’t like the track or would have got on with it. 

Would still like to know what wound them up, that as you say spoilt the meeting. 

[teaboy279]

I can understand to a degree peoples confusion with the way the ban affects different clubs differently. I dont see any way around it tbh. Think rugby among other major sports, suspend players for a period of days, rather the matches.

It's another consequence of doubling up and if we dont start to restrict this immediately then things will only get worse. It should go back to british riders only, and for a max of 2 seasons (a which point they choose to ride at higher or lower level.)

I see riders say they need the meetings to make thier noney, but then  they say the bikes need servicing every 20 or so races. So surely it stands to reason that a few less meetings whilst affecting income would also reduce outgoings equally?

[HGould]

Looking at weather forecasts for the next 10 days could be at least one of them (could be any of the 3) actually misses no matches. Not ideal but surely if you are going to ban for 10 or 12 days a proportionate fine relevant to "x matches"  or a suspended fine (or Fine in the case of Cook who has previous) would be a better punishment.

[Gazc]

2 hours ago, HGould said:

Looking at weather forecasts for the next 10 days could be at least one of them (could be any of the 3) actually misses no matches. Not ideal but surely if you are going to ban for 10 or 12 days a proportionate fine relevant to "x matches"  or a suspended fine (or Fine in the case of Cook who has previous) would be a better punishment.

Oh dear.