Call me wolfie Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 12 minutes ago, orion said: Why would they be worried that's he rides on the Monday? Surely there season ends on Sunday Sorry assumed there would be 2 legs, if it's purely up to him I imagine he'll give it a go. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Jacobs Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 3 hours 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. No one knew what the effect of the Lambert signing would have on the play-offs. BV hoped he would be a good replacement, but they couldn't guarantee that. Sheffield hoped Jack Holder would ride like a #1, but he failed miserably at BV. Sheffield fans quickly forgot about that when whinging about Fricke's performance at Ipswich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoweRacing143 Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 5 minutes ago, Call me wolfie said: Sorry assumed there would be 2 legs, if it's purely up to him I imagine he'll give it a go. Yeah bud Sunday is their last meeting of the season so with a bit of lucky woffy will be back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Jacobs Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, stevebrum said: But replaced him AFTER the cut off and only ever been allowed to happen once in the history of play offs. But after the cut off date to replace a rider, again only ever permitted one year in play off history. Exactly this, spot on. I will never disagree with any of the interpretation and general hot air surrounding what happened, but the point is that the Regulation existed, so it was used (and not just by BV). There have been other examples of stupid Regulations in Play-Off history which have resulted in either removal of said Regulations, or re-writing/re-interpretation, e.g. Tactical Joker, and eventually T/S, and of course the use of one guest - which is still sufficiently vague to cause dispute. They never learn. Edited September 21, 2023 by Roger Jacobs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERACE Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 1 hour 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. There season ends Sunday so won't be bothered. Also great he's back but is really fit enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Call me wolfie Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 23 minutes ago, SUPERACE said: There season ends Sunday so won't be bothered. Also great he's back but is really fit enough? I guess we’ll find out on Monday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Call me wolfie Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 1 hour ago, LoweRacing143 said: Yeah bud Sunday is their last meeting of the season so with a bit of lucky woffy will be back Would make it 2 cracking meetings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazS Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Call me wolfie said: I guess we’ll find out on Monday you will find out on .Sunday Edited September 21, 2023 by DazS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Call me wolfie Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 11 minutes ago, DazS said: you will find out on .Sunday True Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szkocjasid Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 The fact that people still argue / disagree about Lambert signing for Belle Vue one year later, shows just how poorly the rule was written. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted September 21, 2023 Report Share Posted September 21, 2023 5 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said: I will never disagree with any of the interpretation and general hot air surrounding what happened, but the point is that the Regulation existed, so it was used (and not just by BV). There have been other examples of stupid Regulations in Play-Off history which have resulted in either removal of said Regulations, or re-writing/re-interpretation, e.g. Tactical Joker, and eventually T/S, and of course the use of one guest - which is still sufficiently vague to cause dispute. They never learn. Yes absolutely. The rule existed (or added to the 2022 rules) bizarrely and as usual completely cocked it up. As they always do. Make the rules clear and unambiguous. It should never be allowed to interpreted in any other way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted September 22, 2023 Report Share Posted September 22, 2023 18 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said: I will never disagree with any of the interpretation and general hot air surrounding what happened, but the point is that the Regulation existed, so it was used (and not just by BV). There have been other examples of stupid Regulations in Play-Off history which have resulted in either removal of said Regulations, or re-writing/re-interpretation, e.g. Tactical Joker, and eventually T/S, and of course the use of one guest - which is still sufficiently vague to cause dispute. They never learn. The rule first appeared in the 2020 rule book but of course that season didn’t go ahead. Excerpt from the 2022 rule book. 012.2 A Premiership Transfer Window opens after 25% of the League fixtures are complete and closes when 75% of League fixtures are complete. This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury. Peterborough played by the rule prior to 25% citing proven long term injury. Belle Vue played by the rule after 75% citing proven long term injury. Sheffield used the rule making more than 3 changes citing proven long term injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben91 Posted September 22, 2023 Report Share Posted September 22, 2023 8 minutes ago, ouch said: The rule first appeared in the 2020 rule book but of course that season didn’t go ahead. Excerpt from the 2022 rule book. 012.2 A Premiership Transfer Window opens after 25% of the League fixtures are complete and closes when 75% of League fixtures are complete. This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury. Peterborough played by the rule prior to 25% citing proven long term injury. Belle Vue played by the rule after 75% citing proven long term injury. Sheffield used the rule making more than 3 changes citing proven long term injury. Rulemakers trying to be too smart for their own good here. “Team changes can only be made between X date and Y date. The only exception to this is the case of proven long term injury.” Simple really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Call me wolfie Posted September 22, 2023 Report Share Posted September 22, 2023 14 minutes ago, Ben91 said: Rulemakers trying to be too smart for their own good here. “Team changes can only be made between X date and Y date. The only exception to this is the case of proven long term injury.” Simple really. I don't think that was the intention, hence why BV's 1st attempt to sign him was rejected. As you so though, the rule isn't very clear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted September 22, 2023 Report Share Posted September 22, 2023 Best of luck to Sheffield, great to see a team using the clear regulations to bring in a top star, just like the Aces did last year... "Mr Play Offs" himself.... #aceslegend #tigerslegend Will be earning as many winners (and losers) medals as Bomber at this rate... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Jacobs Posted September 23, 2023 Report Share Posted September 23, 2023 On 9/22/2023 at 12:16 PM, Ben91 said: Rulemakers trying to be too smart for their own good here. “Team changes can only be made between X date and Y date. The only exception to this is the case of proven long term injury.” Simple really. They're not trying to be too smart for their own good - they're not trying at all. They write Regs without any thought, and without any testing/wargaming. PS: "Proven long term injury" isn't simple or clear. If they were to have such a Regulation again, it should state a minimum time. To paraphrase the well known quote: A week is a long time in British speedway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted September 23, 2023 Report Share Posted September 23, 2023 5 minutes ago, Roger Jacobs said: They're not trying to be too smart for their own good - they're not trying at all. They write Regs without any thought, and without any testing/wargaming. PS: "Proven long term injury" isn't simple or clear. If they were to have such a Regulation again, it should state a minimum time. To paraphrase the well known quote: A week is a long time in British speedway. Rules are kept ambiguous so they can be "interperated" as and when is needed.. You can't "make it all up as you go along" if rules are clear and beyond any subjectivity... And that would be no good for UK Speedway who depend on that "moments notice" change in personnel... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben91 Posted September 23, 2023 Report Share Posted September 23, 2023 4 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said: They're not trying to be too smart for their own good - they're not trying at all. They write Regs without any thought, and without any testing/wargaming. PS: "Proven long term injury" isn't simple or clear. If they were to have such a Regulation again, it should state a minimum time. To paraphrase the well known quote: A week is a long time in British speedway. Have to disagree with the first paragraph. The rules are all too wordy and using percentages of fixtures completed is an attempt at sounding more intelligent than they are (not very). Second paragraph, I appreciate your point completely. But it is again something open to interpretation. It completely contradicts my point I know but If Emil Sayfutdinov gets concussed in the first leg of the play off final for example, that’s a season ender due to the length of time he has to spend out but not a “long term” injury. So should Ipswich be allowed to sign Bartosz Zmarzlik for one meeting? 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.