Oxford v Sheffield Monday 1st July Live on Eurosport

[szkocjasid]

27 minutes ago, hagonshocker said:

I'm not blaming Kemp though, I'm doing what you are and blaming Oxford...same with signing Riss 

I wasn't meaning you were blaming Kemp, just a general comment for all, don't blame Kemp - he's not the reason for Oxford being weak, the manager is.

I've never known a team to keep making themselves weaker.

I guess Leicester did it last year, but that was more of a panic move after the Morris (or was it Worrall) suspension, Oxford don't have the luxury of that same excuse.

[stevebrum]

On 7/3/2024 at 8:17 AM, szkocjasid said:

I wasn't meaning you were blaming Kemp, just a general comment for all, don't blame Kemp - he's not the reason for Oxford being weak, the manager is.

I've never known a team to keep making themselves weaker.

I guess Leicester did it last year, but that was more of a panic move after the Morris (or was it Worrall) suspension, Oxford don't have the luxury of that same excuse.

Yes I agree ultimately the manager is responsible but Oxfords issues are signing a number one who mostly scores like a 2nd string. 

[Bagpuss]

On 7/4/2024 at 3:26 PM, stevebrum said:

Yes I agree ultimately the manager is responsible but Oxfords issues are signing a number one who mostly scores like a 2nd string. 

It's a fair point but Tungate is averaging nearly eight and a half, I'd say the two are cancelling eachother out in terms of expectations. 

As a team they are performing pretty much as I expected, ie battling for 4th.

[stevebrum]

Just now, Bagpuss said:

It's a fair point but Tungate is averaging nearly eight and a half, I'd say the two are cancelling eachother out in terms of expectations. 

As a team they are performing pretty much as I expected, ie battling for 4th.

They do cancel each other out hence why they will struggle to make 4th. Will need Janowski to up his game if they make the play offs as they will be fodder otherwise.

[Hilly]

Being over 5 points under the limit makes them fodder for sure.

[szkocjasid]

1 hour ago, Hilly said:

Being over 5 points under the limit makes them fodder for sure.

But still in the fight for the play-offs, not favourites to make it though. Imagine where they could have finished up if they used the spare points!

[IainB]

17 minutes ago, szkocjasid said:

But still in the fight for the play-offs, not favourites to make it though. Imagine where they could have finished up if they used the spare points!

Whoever makes the pay offs in 4th spot will be straight out imo, BV, Ippo & Sheffield all look to be stronger than any of the other 4 teams in contention, even when they're carrying injuries, especially over 2 legs and especially as Ippo and Sheffield will probably replace their injured riders for the pay offs

Edited July 6 by iainb

[Hilly]

14 hours ago, szkocjasid said:

But still in the fight for the play-offs, not favourites to make it though. Imagine where they could have finished up if they used the spare points!

My point exactly!!!

[szkocjasid]

16 hours ago, iainb said:

Whoever makes the pay offs in 4th spot will be straight out imo, BV, Ippo & Sheffield all look to be stronger than any of the other 4 teams in contention, even when they're carrying injuries, especially over 2 legs and especially as Ippo and Sheffield will probably replace their injured riders for the pay offs

I honestly think Leicester could be really good if they all ride to their potential but hey never seem to. So certainly rate them above Oxford, unless changes are made.

[Roger Jacobs]

On 7/1/2024 at 10:38 AM, ouch said:

Official declarations from when he arrived until the seasons end had him marked as “* assessed due to one of the following. Est MA older than prev 2 seasons.”

https://britishspeedway.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/p23_issue_26.pdf

https://britishspeedway.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/p23_issue_34.pdf

From 2023 rules. 

011.4.2 Guest Rider (G)

C. the guest must be in a current team declaration and have an established MA.

I had quite an e-mail exchange with the BSPL Office about this.  The reply I received was:

"You have quoted the rule yourself and it does not mention 'assessed', it says 'have an established MA' and Robert Lambert DOES have an established average, from 2019, he just hasn't done enough meetings to update that for this season.

Without appearing to be too long winded, that rule is with regards riders who have never had an established MA, hence it does not mention 'assessed'. I believe other riders in a similar position have guested this season, but nobody has queried that? I don't want to drone on but what if a rider is riding on his converted CL MA and has that * by his name, have they ever not been able to guest? Next season that box will be changed as it is obviously misleading when it suits!"

This was my reply:

"Having taken some time to digest your reply on 22 September, I have looked more closely at the SCB Regs and they prove how poorly written and open to interpretation they are:
 

You said:

“…  it says 'have an established MA' and Robert Lambert DOES have an established average, from 2019, he just hasn't done enough meetings to update that for this season.“

That being said, I wondered why Lambert’s scores from 2019 haven’t been carried forward as part of a Rolling Average to contribute towards an updated Green Sheet, which seems the most logical approach. I then realised the Regs say only scores from the last two seasons can count towards an Established MA.

 

If that’s the case, why is an average with scores from as long ago as 2019 considered to be an Established MA?  There is nothing in the Regulations which states that an average from more than two seasons ago can be used - I guess the argument is that there’s nothing in the Regs which state that old MAs can’t be used?

 

Of course, the Regs also say: "A Premiership Assessed League rider will establish an MA after completing 3 home and 3 away qualifying fixtures."

Robert Lambert is shown in the current Green Sheets as having an Assessed MA (there is no disputing that, whatever spin is put on the * next to his name and the Key at the top right), and has not completed 3 home and 3 away qualifying fixtures, so he has not got an Established MA.

Please note: as far as I’m concerned, this has nothing to do with the specific rider and/or teams involved - as stated above, it highlights that the SCB Regulations are poorly written and open to interpretation, and also how the BPSL/SCB do not make their decisions transparent to the fans.

 

The Regulations must not be tweaked, because when one area is updated, it can often cause problems elsewhere - as seen in 2022 when Belle Vue were able to use (ironically) Robert Lambert.

 

I think it has been said many times in the past that the Regs are being reviewed - wording regarding averages and guests, in particular, must be rewritten, proofread, wargamed and checked again to iron out all this uncertainty."

 

Hey Ho!

[szkocjasid]

23 minutes ago, Roger Jacobs said:

I had quite an e-mail exchange with the BSPL Office about this.  The reply I received was:

"You have quoted the rule yourself and it does not mention 'assessed', it says 'have an established MA' and Robert Lambert DOES have an established average, from 2019, he just hasn't done enough meetings to update that for this season.

Without appearing to be too long winded, that rule is with regards riders who have never had an established MA, hence it does not mention 'assessed'. I believe other riders in a similar position have guested this season, but nobody has queried that? I don't want to drone on but what if a rider is riding on his converted CL MA and has that * by his name, have they ever not been able to guest? Next season that box will be changed as it is obviously misleading when it suits!"

This was my reply:

 

"Having taken some time to digest your reply on 22 September, I have looked more closely at the SCB Regs and they prove how poorly written and open to interpretation they are:
 

You said:

“…  it says 'have an established MA' and Robert Lambert DOES have an established average, from 2019, he just hasn't done enough meetings to update that for this season.“

That being said, I wondered why Lambert’s scores from 2019 haven’t been carried forward as part of a Rolling Average to contribute towards an updated Green Sheet, which seems the most logical approach. I then realised the Regs say only scores from the last two seasons can count towards an Established MA.

 

If that’s the case, why is an average with scores from as long ago as 2019 considered to be an Established MA?  There is nothing in the Regulations which states that an average from more than two seasons ago can be used - I guess the argument is that there’s nothing in the Regs which state that old MAs can’t be used?

 

Of course, the Regs also say: "A Premiership Assessed League rider will establish an MA after completing 3 home and 3 away qualifying fixtures."

Robert Lambert is shown in the current Green Sheets as having an Assessed MA (there is no disputing that, whatever spin is put on the * next to his name and the Key at the top right), and has not completed 3 home and 3 away qualifying fixtures, so he has not got an Established MA.

Please note: as far as I’m concerned, this has nothing to do with the specific rider and/or teams involved - as stated above, it highlights that the SCB Regulations are poorly written and open to interpretation, and also how the BPSL/SCB do not make their decisions transparent to the fans.

 

The Regulations must not be tweaked, because when one area is updated, it can often cause problems elsewhere - as seen in 2022 when Belle Vue were able to use (ironically) Robert Lambert.

 

I think it has been said many times in the past that the Regs are being reviewed - wording regarding averages and guests, in particular, must be rewritten, proofread, wargamed and checked again to iron out all this uncertainty."

 

Hey Ho!

Credit for trying to get them to simplify things.

[ouch]

That is some reply. 

Saying “I believe other riders in a similar position have guested”. Why the need to “believe”, you should either know if they have or haven’t and give examples (they haven’t). 

I have no idea what the CL converted average is all about as those riders don’t have an * against their entry in the official declarations, it’s just altered (by 1.5) as Connor Mountains was at the beginning of the season. 

Shockingly inept reply and I’d actually prefer if they just fronted up and said it’s dodgy, it’s wrong but it’s what we want so suck it up. 

 

[mikebv]

11 hours ago, ouch said:

That is some reply. 

Saying “I believe other riders in a similar position have guested”. Why the need to “believe”, you should either know if they have or haven’t and give examples (they haven’t). 

I have no idea what the CL converted average is all about as those riders don’t have an * against their entry in the official declarations, it’s just altered (by 1.5) as Connor Mountains was at the beginning of the season. 

Shockingly inept reply and I’d actually prefer if they just fronted up and said it’s dodgy, it’s wrong but it’s what we want so suck it up. 

 

And end with...

"We need to keep the regs as ambiguous as possible so we all can interpret them as we would like when we need to make changes, that way we always get to do what we want"...

"PS. And no one takes what we do too seriuosly anyway, do they? So, just as long as we get reasonably competitive meetings on each night, all is ok"...