Well done the S.C.B.

[Fortythirtyeight]

A short while ago a ' junior ' fixture took place at a northern track and a young child was excluded by the referee allegedly for causing another young child to crash. Not an unusual occurance you might think but the race was filmed and the alleged offender was extremely upset that he may have been the cause of injurys to his friend that he didn't want to race again. 

Upon review of the footage it was clear there was no contact and the faller had crashed due to lack of experience in a race situation. The excluded riders team manager now had a traumatised rider not wanting to race ever again so he decided to show the referee the footage in the hope that the ref would speak to the accused rider , after the meeting, to reassure him that it was just a racing incident and he should continue riding his bike in future.

The said manager was invited into the refs box by another official , having knocked and asked to speak with the ref. The ref was told about the footage and asked to view it but refused in no uncertain term and demanded the manager leave the box post haste.

ok, all fine and well, just a team manager and a ref disagreeing you might say, happens all the time. But....

the S.C.B.  ( Neil Vatcher ) has now decided the team manger has breached rule 3:2:8 and has been fined £100 . Failure to pay leads to an automatic speedway ban.

lets get this in context.

A certain Premiership ( and former G.P. ) rider was find £65 for ASSAULT on an official at the Fours event at Peterborough. 

Where is the level playing field here?

The manager is an unpaid volunteer who travels far and wide at his own expense and pays for the privilege of helping our future riders. He has not previously transgressed and is well thought of within the sport. Surely an official reprimand at most would have sufficed but no, £100 fine and Vatcher will not reply to any discussion on the matter.

The Premiership riders fine was based on £65 being the average payment a rider of that calibre should be paid per point ( yes, that's honestly what the S.C.B. said!)

In that case why is the team manger being fined at all? He doesn't get paid!

In this country even a criminal is given his 5 minutes in court to put his side of the story but not with the S.C.B. it seems unless the unpaid team manger wants to pay another £150 to appeal, take time off work, travel to Rugby and go before other S,C.B. officials in the hope they vote against Mr.Vatchers decision.

So now the sport will be a £100 richer but the poorer for losing an enthusiastic volunteer who gave his all to help the speedway kids in his area.

Well done the S.C.B.

 

[Chris116]

IF we have the full story and I was in the manager's position I would tell the SCB to stuff their sport. 

EDIT:- I am not surprised but a lot of extra information about what happened has now surfaced which proves there is more to this situation than the original post mentions. What the SCB are guilty of is a total lack of transparency which has backfired, as it often does.

If the full story had been detailed by the SCB in this case and others then they would have avoided a lot of annoyance directed towards the SCB by those who care about the sport. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Chris116

[Wee Eck]

3 hours ago, Fortythirtyeight said:

A short while ago a ' junior ' fixture took place at a northern track and a young child was excluded by the referee allegedly for causing another young child to crash. Not an unusual occurance you might think but the race was filmed and the alleged offender was extremely upset that he may have been the cause of injurys to his friend that he didn't want to race again. 

Upon review of the footage it was clear there was no contact and the faller had crashed due to lack of experience in a race situation. The excluded riders team manager now had a traumatised rider not wanting to race ever again so he decided to show the referee the footage in the hope that the ref would speak to the accused rider , after the meeting, to reassure him that it was just a racing incident and he should continue riding his bike in future.

The said manager was invited into the refs box by another official , having knocked and asked to speak with the ref. The ref was told about the footage and asked to view it but refused in no uncertain term and demanded the manager leave the box post haste.

ok, all fine and well, just a team manager and a ref disagreeing you might say, happens all the time. But....

the S.C.B.  ( Neil Vatcher ) has now decided the team manger has breached rule 3:2:8 and has been fined £100 . Failure to pay leads to an automatic speedway ban.

lets get this in context.

A certain Premiership ( and former G.P. ) rider was find £65 for ASSAULT on an official at the Fours event at Peterborough. 

Where is the level playing field here?

The manager is an unpaid volunteer who travels far and wide at his own expense and pays for the privilege of helping our future riders. He has not previously transgressed and is well thought of within the sport. Surely an official reprimand at most would have sufficed but no, £100 fine and Vatcher will not reply to any discussion on the matter.

The Premiership riders fine was based on £65 being the average payment a rider of that calibre should be paid per point ( yes, that's honestly what the S.C.B. said!)

In that case why is the team manger being fined at all? He doesn't get paid!

In this country even a criminal is given his 5 minutes in court to put his side of the story but not with the S.C.B. it seems unless the unpaid team manger wants to pay another £150 to appeal, take time off work, travel to Rugby and go before other S,C.B. officials in the hope they vote against Mr.Vatchers decision.

So now the sport will be a £100 richer but the poorer for losing an enthusiastic volunteer who gave his all to help the speedway kids in his area.

Well done the S.C.B.

 

Why not name names? Who was the rider? Who was the team manager? Who was the referee? Where was this meeting?

If the team manager does feel he has a case, he should pay the returnable appeal fee of £150 rather than the fine of £100 and ask for a hearing. He doesn’t need to attend but could make his case in writing. He could also contact any one of the four SCB members and ask if it’s worth his while putting in an appeal. 

You say even a criminal is given his five minutes in court. Well, there’s nothing stopping him having that. 

Or is there more to this?

[The Doctor...]

46 minutes ago, Wee Eck said:

Why not name names? Who was the rider? Who was the team manager? Who was the referee? Where was this meeting?

If the team manager does feel he has a case, he should pay the returnable appeal fee of £150 rather than the fine of £100 and ask for a hearing. He doesn’t need to attend but could make his case in writing. He could also contact any one of the four SCB members and ask if it’s worth his while putting in an appeal. 

You say even a criminal is given his five minutes in court. Well, there’s nothing stopping him having that. 

Or is there more to this?

Maybe a former team manager or clerk of the course on the forum can answer this, but not sure just any old random official other than the ref can invite a team manager to enter the ref's box. Also, 3.2.8 is violent/threatening/abusive, which is subject to witness statements normally, so am guessing there is definitely more to this.

[Sings4Speedway]

50 minutes ago, Wee Eck said:

Why not name names? Who was the rider? Who was the team manager? Who was the referee? Where was this meeting?

If the team manager does feel he has a case, he should pay the returnable appeal fee of £150 rather than the fine of £100 and ask for a hearing. He doesn’t need to attend but could make his case in writing. He could also contact any one of the four SCB members and ask if it’s worth his while putting in an appeal. 

You say even a criminal is given his five minutes in court. Well, there’s nothing stopping him having that. 

Or is there more to this?

Names largely irrelevant the fine is unnecessary, the manager went above and beyond (although not knocking the youth rider but is unlikely to make it in the sport with the fearful attitude), the referee was entitled to ignore the requests so providing no bad language was issued it seems a harsh punishment ......however the wording of the referee's report / complaint will be the most telling item in this.

[Wee Eck]

42 minutes ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Names largely irrelevant the fine is unnecessary, the manager went above and beyond (although not knocking the youth rider but is unlikely to make it in the sport with the fearful attitude), the referee was entitled to ignore the requests so providing no bad language was issued it seems a harsh punishment ......however the wording of the referee's report / complaint will be the most telling item in this.

What I was saying was we’re only getting half a story and, without names or other details to back it up, shouldn’t rush to judgement. The Doctor’s point though is telling: 3.2.8 is a severe charge and (one would hope) unlikely to be used if there was nothing but sweetness and light in the exchange. 

[JCookie]

2 hours ago, Wee Eck said:

Why not name names? Who was the rider? Who was the team manager? Who was the referee? Where was this meeting?

If the team manager does feel he has a case, he should pay the returnable appeal fee of £150 rather than the fine of £100 and ask for a hearing. He doesn’t need to attend but could make his case in writing. He could also contact any one of the four SCB members and ask if it’s worth his while putting in an appeal. 

You say even a criminal is given his five minutes in court. Well, there’s nothing stopping him having that. 

Or is there more to this?

The reaction from the rider suggests it was something quite serious - could this have been to do with Sam Norris's unfortunate accident?

[IainB]

He should get Craig Cook's lawyer

[foamfence]

If that put the kid out of racing then he probably wasn't right to be in it.

[BWitcher]

Just now, foamfence said:

If that put the kid out of racing then he probably wasn't right to be in it.

Exactly my first thoughts.

[SharpenRake]

26 minutes ago, JCookie said:

The reaction from the rider suggests it was something quite serious - could this have been to do with Sam Norris's unfortunate accident?

I think you will find that Sam was unfortunately injured in an individual meeting at Glasgow - the British Youth Championships - which was abandoned after Sam's horrific accident. So your speculation is way off mark

[Fortythirtyeight]

2 hours ago, Wee Eck said:

Why not name names? Who was the rider? Who was the team manager? Who was the referee? Where was this meeting?

If the team manager does feel he has a case, he should pay the returnable appeal fee of £150 rather than the fine of £100 and ask for a hearing. He doesn’t need to attend but could make his case in writing. He could also contact any one of the four SCB members and ask if it’s worth his while putting in an appeal. 

You say even a criminal is given his five minutes in court. Well, there’s nothing stopping him having that. 

Or is there more to this?

I haven't named names as I don't wish to embarrass the manager , whom I know and the ref, who lives close by and will no doubt officiate again against this junior team and sees the person concerned quite regularly.

There is no more to this than is stated. Just wanted to point out the terrible standards applied by the S.C.B. and their arrogance in not even replying to correspondence from the team manager or his club.

Why should he lose even more money by appealing , yes he would be entitled to his ' fees ' back , if he wins but he would lose his days pay and travelling expenses.

It is my opinion that the S.C.B. Is, like the B.S.P.A. , unanswerable to anybody and so behave how they like.

[Fingersfin]

This happened at Glasgow. I wasn't in the box as I was recording the Tigers Post meeting video in the depths of the stand so I missed all the excitement. On returning to the box  I was told that there had been a crash and that someone had stormed the refs box after marching a long way to get there. He complained that his rider (possibly his son, can't remember) was being called a cheat by being excluded and that the ref must look at the video and reverse the decision. By all accounts his manner was fairly aggressive and he had to be removed from the box. 

Everyone was fairly bemused by his actions. 

Sorry can't remember the meeting or the ref for that matter but it went into the weird category. 

Anyway it was obviously reported. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Fingersfin

[f-s-p]

7 hours ago, Fortythirtyeight said:

A short while ago a ' junior ' fixture took place at a northern track and a young child was excluded by the referee allegedly for causing another young child to crash. Not an unusual occurance you might think but the race was filmed and the alleged offender was extremely upset that he may have been the cause of injurys to his friend that he didn't want to race again. 

Upon review of the footage it was clear there was no contact and the faller had crashed due to lack of experience in a race situation. The excluded riders team manager now had a traumatised rider not wanting to race ever again so he decided to show the referee the footage in the hope that the ref would speak to the accused rider , after the meeting, to reassure him that it was just a racing incident and he should continue riding his bike in future.

The said manager was invited into the refs box by another official , having knocked and asked to speak with the ref. The ref was told about the footage and asked to view it but refused in no uncertain term and demanded the manager leave the box post haste.

ok, all fine and well, just a team manager and a ref disagreeing you might say, happens all the time. But....

the S.C.B.  ( Neil Vatcher ) has now decided the team manger has breached rule 3:2:8 and has been fined £100 . Failure to pay leads to an automatic speedway ban.

lets get this in context.

A certain Premiership ( and former G.P. ) rider was find £65 for ASSAULT on an official at the Fours event at Peterborough. 

Where is the level playing field here?

The manager is an unpaid volunteer who travels far and wide at his own expense and pays for the privilege of helping our future riders. He has not previously transgressed and is well thought of within the sport. Surely an official reprimand at most would have sufficed but no, £100 fine and Vatcher will not reply to any discussion on the matter.

The Premiership riders fine was based on £65 being the average payment a rider of that calibre should be paid per point ( yes, that's honestly what the S.C.B. said!)

In that case why is the team manger being fined at all? He doesn't get paid!

In this country even a criminal is given his 5 minutes in court to put his side of the story but not with the S.C.B. it seems unless the unpaid team manger wants to pay another £150 to appeal, take time off work, travel to Rugby and go before other S,C.B. officials in the hope they vote against Mr.Vatchers decision.

So now the sport will be a £100 richer but the poorer for losing an enthusiastic volunteer who gave his all to help the speedway kids in his area.

Well done the S.C.B.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Fingersfin said:

This happened at Glasgow. I wasn't in the box as I was recording the Tigers Post meeting video in the depths of the stand so I missed all the excitement. On returning to the box  I was told that there had been a crash and that someone had stormed the refs box after marching a long way to get there. He complained that his rider (possibly his son, can't remember) was being called a cheat by being excluded and that the ref must look at the video and reverse the decision. By all accounts his manner was fairly aggressive and he had to be removed from the box. 

Everyone was fairly bemused by his actions. 

Sorry can't remember the meeting or the ref for that matter but it went into the weird category. 

Anyway it was obviously reported. 

Hmmmmnnn....  

[PotteringAround]

18 minutes ago, Fingersfin said:

Sorry can't remember the meeting or the ref for that matter but it went into the weird category. 

Anyway it was obviously reported,which the guy who lost the plot can't really argue with. 

To put things into context it was the last heat of an NJL match with the scores level at 15-15 going into the race.    Cayden Martin came down, with Callum Gill being disqualified as the cause of the stoppage.  

That meant that Glasgow won 19-17.   Had the decision gone the other way it would likely have finished with Redcar getting a draw.  

I would suggest that the guy who lost the plot and stormed the referees box was actually more angry about Redcar being denied a draw, rather than being concerned about a rider being mentally scarred by being disqualified as the cause of the stoppage of a comparatively meaningless race.

[foamfence]

I didn't think anyone was authorised to enter the referee's box (pardon) or indeed invite someone there, with the exception of those who share it for commentary etc.

[foamfence]

2 minutes ago, PotteringAround said:

To put things into context it was the last heat of an NJL match with the scores level at 15-15 going into the race.    Cayden Martin came down, with Callum Gill being disqualified as the cause of the stoppage.  

That meant that Glasgow won 19-17.   Had the decision gone the other way it would likely have finished with Redcar getting a draw.  

I would suggest that the guy who lost the plot and stormed the referees box was actually more angry about Redcar being denied a draw, rather than being concerned about a rider being mentally scarred by being disqualified as the cause of the stoppage of a comparatively meaningless race.

It still wasn't the right thing to do.

[PotteringAround]

5 minutes ago, foamfence said:

It still wasn't the right thing to do.

Definitely not.

I'm pointing out that claiming a rider was mentally scarred for being disqualified as the cause of the stoppage of a race seems to be far-fetched and just  an excuse made up later to defend his actions. 

I strongly suspect the person in question lost the plot because his team had been beaten.   In a meaningless junior match that's very sad, and a bad example to kids.

Control Bureau seem to be spot on with their fine.

Edited October 8, 2019 by PotteringAround

[Fortythirtyeight]

10 minutes ago, PotteringAround said:

Definitely not.

I'm pointing out that claiming a rider was mentally scarred for being disqualified as the cause of the stoppage of a race seems to be far-fetched and just  an excuse made up later to defend his actions. 

I strongly suspect the person in question lost the plot because his team had been beaten.   In a meaningless junior match that's very sad, and a bad example to kids.

Control Bureau seem to be spot on with their fine.

Absolute rubbish based on nothing.

The excluded rider is a young kid and yougsters react differently to adults especially when the injuries looked serious as the other rider was down a long time leading to all sorts of rumours in the pits.

The team had nothing to win anyway and the manager concerned is not the slightest bit interested in winning or losing he and his club just want to get kids racing speedway bikes. Not everyone has a 'win at all costs' attitude.The concern was that an innocent rider was being blamed for something he was not responsible for. The manager wanted to keep the riders conscience clear so he wouldn't give up racing, what is wrong with that?

So the S.C.B. are right to fine him £100 and that is justifiable when an ASSAULT attracts a £65 fine???

Justify that for me please?

 

[foamfence]

11 minutes ago, Fortythirtyeight said:

Absolute rubbish based on nothing.

The excluded rider is a young kid and yougsters react differently to adults especially when the injuries looked serious as the other rider was down a long time leading to all sorts of rumours in the pits.

The team had nothing to win anyway and the manager concerned is not the slightest bit interested in winning or losing he and his club just want to get kids racing speedway bikes. Not everyone has a 'win at all costs' attitude.The concern was that an innocent rider was being blamed for something he was not responsible for. The manager wanted to keep the riders conscience clear so he wouldn't give up racing, what is wrong with that?

So the S.C.B. are right to fine him £100 and that is justifiable when an ASSAULT attracts a £65 fine???

Justify that for me please?

 

It's the same everywhere where judgements are made, take a look at your local court files. I don't even know why you bothered starting the thread.