Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

2023 Playoffs


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, mikebv said:

The sport was massive due to the individual comps going out on one of just three channels throughout the summer on TV..

Tens of millions literally watched it...

Then turned up at the tracks to watch those riders..

And in those days when PC was "somewhere else" (with Larry Ross, Pete Smith, John Titman, or Martin Ashby), replacing him, you found out when you were there, not on the internet a couple of days before...

A completely different time...

Time, which has moved on...

Speedway (n the UK) hasn't..

"But guests are a necessary evil"...

"Dribble, Dribble"....:D

.

Surely being on TV made things worst..After all these people would have seen these dreaded Guest riders and then turn  off the TV and never gone to speedway again . Not sure why you would go to your local  track in the first place  unless people were really bother by guest riders of course.lol  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Call me wolfie said:

There was a separate regulation which you’ve failed to mention.

No team changes to be permitted after August ## (can’t remember exact date) except for a rider returning from long term injury.

you would have thought if it was intended that you could change a rider who got injured after said date it would be included in this regulation. The regulation you quote is merely trying to say you could make changes on a 3rd occasion if one was for a long term injury. so actually yes, there is ambiguity, massive ambiguity in fact, hence their 1st attempt to sign him was rejected. Actually it’s not even ambiguous, it’s pretty clear, I’m amazed the BSPA backed down on it to be honest.

Please check your facts before quoting selective parts to support your argument. You will be pulled up on it.

I did not quote selective parts, you did.

The "No more than 2 changes, except for cases of long term injury" was specific to the Premiership, so overrode (if you'll pardon the pun) anything else.

No doubt you'll be delighted to see that the Witches have now been shafted by the Regulations regarding their use of Joe Thompson as a Guest in the Rising Star position.  I can't see anything at all in the Regs to prevent them form using him.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bagpuss said:

That's the bottom line.

I think guests, R/R and doubling help don't help though. My wife's grandad no longer goes to Belle Vue regularly for a number of reasons but if you ask him why the first reason he will come out with is the lack of a team identity. I know on the odd occasions 

 

I remember someone the same kind of thing about the Swindon side a few years ago. the problem was when you looked at the stats Swindon had one of the best in their History for having the  same 7 out each week  I think since we gone to Monday - Thursday I think it's been really good in terms of teams having there normal  1 to 7..of course we have a band of people  who just pan British Speedway no matter what so just tend ignore that .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, orion said:

I remember someone the same kind of thing about the Swindon side a few years ago. the problem was when you looked at the stats Swindon had one of the best in their History for having the  same 7 out each week  I think since we gone to Monday - Thursday I think it's been really good in terms of teams having there normal  1 to 7..of course we have a band of people  who just pan British Speedway no matter what so just tend ignore that .

It's definitely helped.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Roger Jacobs said:

I did not quote selective parts, you did.

The "No more than 2 changes, except for cases of long term injury" was specific to the Premiership, so overrode (if you'll pardon the pun) anything else.

No doubt you'll be delighted to see that the Witches have now been shafted by the Regulations regarding their use of Joe Thompson as a Guest in the Rising Star position.  I can't see anything at all in the Regs to prevent them form using him.

The no more than 2 changes rule may be specific to the premiership, as you say, but as I've said that just means you could make additional changes to your line up in cases of long term injury. Why should that override a regulation stating no team changes to be made after said date except riders RETURNING from long term injury. The intention of the regulations is clear.

 

Regarding Joe, if there's nothing in the regulations stopping him, then he should be allowed to ride, I've not felt the need to check the regs regarding this but I'll take your word for it on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, arnieg said:

In this context pretty obviously yes (along with BSPL AGM minutes)

In that case, I'll go to the library and check the BSPL minutes ... along with all the other stuff that's readily available in this splendidly transparent sport.

Edited by Roger Jacobs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

 

 

 

So you admit if a 2nd team wanted to use Harris they could. It takes an non-binding gentleman's agreement to prevent it

A legal challenge would allow it.....

Yes.  But it's unlikely to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Roger Jacobs said:

In that case, I'll go to the library and check the BSPL minutes ... along with all the other stuff that's readily available in this splendidly transparent sport.

But the litigant in any case would be a member of the BSPL and would have access to such documents.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said:

There is a difference???  :rofl: :rofl:

The wording was: "This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury."  There is no ambiguity.

As I have stated several times before, both Sheffield and Ipswich used this Regulation to their advantage, and in both cases the proven long term injury was just 6 weeks!  In Sheffield's case the injured rider never returned to their 1-7, even though he was fit enough to ride in the Championship, because they realised they were stronger with the change they made.

If the intention was for something different, the BSPA/SCB should have written the Regulation to reflect that. You can't say: "that's not what we meant", it wouldn't stand up in Primary School, let alone a court.

Correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Call me wolfie said:

The no more than 2 changes rule may be specific to the premiership, as you say, but as I've said that just means you could make additional changes to your line up in cases of long term injury. Why should that override a regulation stating no team changes to be made after said date except riders RETURNING from long term injury. The intention of the regulations is clear.

 

Regarding Joe, if there's nothing in the regulations stopping him, then he should be allowed to ride, I've not felt the need to check the regs regarding this but I'll take your word for it on that one.

Except the "intention" of the Regs is nothing to do with what they actually say, and that was proved by Belle Vue.

Thanks for the support re: the Joe Thompson decision. The BSPL has quoted the 8 day rule - it seems they think it is open to interpretation. Unfortunately, it seems that Chris Louis has rolled over and accepted the ruling "in the best interests of the sport", when what he should be doing is standing firm, as Belle Vue did, and challenge the interpretation of the Regs absolutely in the best interests of the sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Roger Jacobs said:

Except the "intention" of the Regs is nothing to do with what they actually say, and that was proved by Belle Vue.

Thanks for the support re: the Joe Thompson decision. The BSPL has quoted the 8 day rule - it seems they think it is open to interpretation. Unfortunately, it seems that Chris Louis has rolled over and accepted the ruling "in the best interests of the sport", when what he should be doing is standing firm, as Belle Vue did, and challenge the interpretation of the Regs absolutely in the best interests of the sport.

Just feel a little sad that it's become all about bending and twisting the rules and finding loopholes etc especially as it had such a profound effect on the outcome of the playoffs.

As you say though, it's sad for Joe, it would have been a good experience for him

Edited by Call me wolfie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Call me wolfie said:

Just feel a little sad that it's become all about bending and twisting the rules and finding loopholes etc especially as it had such a profound effect on the outcome of the playoffs.

As you say though, it's sad for Joe, it would have been a good experience for him

Something we agree on.  It's not right imo that he can't ride and it's a huge blow to Ipswich as jack Smith isn't prem standard.  Although in any one off race he could be a spoiler I don't see Jack troubling the scores too much tonight or Monday.

In terms of the play offs as a whole, it's fallen for Wolves who are now favourites to win it. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2023 at 6:20 PM, Roger Jacobs said:

BV didn't replace their #1 "just for the play-offs", they replaced him when they had to because of injury. 

But replaced him AFTER the cut off and only ever been allowed to happen once in the history of play offs.

On 9/20/2023 at 1:01 PM, SUPERACE said:

Hi signed after Fricke got a season ending injury.  Which was before the play offs started, so no not during but before. 

But after the cut off date to replace a rider, again only ever permitted one year in play off history.

On 9/20/2023 at 1:42 PM, Call me wolfie said:

The rules weren't intended to allow it to happen hence the original attempt to sign him was rejected. It was only when Lemon threatened legal action because the rules were so poorly written that it was finally allowed. No one was allowed to due it in the years prior and no one's allowed to do it now. That's why it's such a sore point with many.

Exactly this, spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SUPERACE said:

Something we agree on.  It's not right imo that he can't ride and it's a huge blow to Ipswich as jack Smith isn't prem standard.  Although in any one off race he could be a spoiler I don't see Jack troubling the scores too much tonight or Monday.

In terms of the play offs as a whole, it's fallen for Wolves who are now favourites to win it. 

https://twitter.com/wtssparta/status/1704845684791275990?s=46&t=7di2TW1f9XBUYzjBttGt8A

 

I think wolves test may have just gotten a fair bit harder seeing as woffy is back riding. Hopefully he can ride this weekend and stay fit for the upcoming fixtures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LoweRacing143 said:

https://twitter.com/wtssparta/status/1704845684791275990?s=46&t=7di2TW1f9XBUYzjBttGt8A

 

I think wolves test may have just gotten a fair bit harder seeing as woffy is back riding. Hopefully he can ride this weekend and stay fit for the upcoming fixtures.

2 meetings in 2 days may be too much for him, plus will Wroclaw let him ride?

It will be a bumper crowd at Monmore if he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Call me wolfie said:

2 meetings in 2 days may be too much for him, plus will Wroclaw let him ride?

It will be a bumper crowd at Monmore if he does.

Why would they be worried that's he rides on the Monday? Surely there season ends on Sunday 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy