Plymouth v Glasgow

[Mr Blobby]

Big Camí can cry all he wants if he actually had his own team there he would’ve been on the end of a pumping. 

[Gazc]

1 hour ago, Mr Blobby said:

Big Camí can cry all he wants if he actually had his own team there he would’ve been on the end of a pumping. 

Mystic Blobby.

[ruckerroo]

Glasgows owners don't seem too be assed about this season really 

[Beirao]

2 minutes ago, ruckerroo said:

Glasgows owners don't seem too be assed about this season really 

What makes you say that? 

[Jaizer]

14 minutes ago, ruckerroo said:

Glasgows owners don't seem too be assed about this season really 

Do you think ivacic was a cheap deal? If weren't assed would've let it slide. Granted it's made us worse but would be a big outlay to bring him over get visa etc 

[SteveLyric2]

11 hours ago, Noelinho said:

Club streams are permitted for footage review.

No referee reviews at Glasgow then! (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

[szkocjasid]

Comment by Cami on the Glasgow FB page.

"We feel sick. The referee has cost us another meeting again. We are absolutely scunnered"

The referee didn't cost you the meeting

"Jack Smith was in front of Baek in Heat 5 and she said Jack wiped him out which was a lot of nonsense"

If ref excluded Baek, Glasgow have 2 more points.

"Then Jordan was winning Heat 14 by a mile and James falls off. The referee then re-runs it after three laps despite Jordan being well ahead"

Why should the ref give Glasgow the benefit of the doubt when their own riders fell off?

"The race is re-run. Baek falls and the race should have been stopped then. But he actually hit Jordan who then lifts and careers into Joe Thompson. Then she puts both Plymouth riders back in the race"

Heard different versions of this, but wouldn't have changed the result.

"I also asked her about Ben Barker clearly moving at the start of Heat 11 but she said she didn’t see anything. I said she could look at the replays on TV but she wouldn’t"

Can understand why he's unhappy, but if the ref didn't see anything, do they need to look at the replays just because a team manager wants them to?

“But she looked at the replays of Heat 14 three or four times"

I'm guessing the ref thought it needed another look & wanted to make she she'd made the correct decision.

"We should have gone into Heat 15 in a last heat decider at 42 each"

No you wouldn't, because the heat 12 5-1 with Harris as a tac sub wouldn't have happened.

"We would have won that meeting tonight without those poor decisions"

Nope, not true 

"We never gave in all night. I waited to do the tactical substitute and that paid off"

As explained earlier, wouldn't have been able to do a tac sub of Smith wasn't excluded. I wonder if Cami would've gotten the blame for not using a tac sub the one time they had a chance?

"It’s a long way down for bad refereeing decisions to cost us the match"

It's a long way down for your own riders to cost you the match.

[Jaizer]

2 minutes ago, szkocjasid said:

Comment by Cami on the Glasgow FB page.

"We feel sick. The referee has cost us another meeting again. We are absolutely scunnered"

The referee didn't cost you the meeting

"Jack Smith was in front of Baek in Heat 5 and she said Jack wiped him out which was a lot of nonsense"

If ref excluded Baek, Glasgow have 2 more points.

"Then Jordan was winning Heat 14 by a mile and James falls off. The referee then re-runs it after three laps despite Jordan being well ahead"

Why should the ref give Glasgow the benefit of the doubt when their own riders fell off?

"The race is re-run. Baek falls and the race should have been stopped then. But he actually hit Jordan who then lifts and careers into Joe Thompson. Then she puts both Plymouth riders back in the race"

Heard different versions of this, but wouldn't have changed the result.

"I also asked her about Ben Barker clearly moving at the start of Heat 11 but she said she didn’t see anything. I said she could look at the replays on TV but she wouldn’t"

Can understand why he's unhappy, but if the ref didn't see anything, do they need to look at the replays just because a team manager wants them to?

“But she looked at the replays of Heat 14 three or four times"

I'm guessing the ref thought it needed another look & wanted to make she she'd made the correct decision.

"We should have gone into Heat 15 in a last heat decider at 42 each"

No you wouldn't, because the heat 12 5-1 with Harris as a tac sub wouldn't have happened.

"We would have won that meeting tonight without those poor decisions"

Nope, not true 

"We never gave in all night. I waited to do the tactical substitute and that paid off"

As explained earlier, wouldn't have been able to do a tac sub of Smith wasn't excluded. I wonder if Cami would've gotten the blame for not using a tac sub the one time they had a chance?

"It’s a long way down for bad refereeing decisions to cost us the match"

It's a long way down for your own riders to cost you the match.

From your 2 posts I assume you've not heard of the butterfly effect? I'll assume no seen as you're assumptions that each result would've followed the previous one or that it will follow the result you've decided it will be.

Heat 15 for example what motivation did Edwards and bomber have? Just been shafted can't win the meeting and bonus was secure. Given they'd the better of barker and Thompson all night you'd think with motivation a 1-5 would not have been the result.

Anyway I'm sure you'll have some smart ass I know better than you response lined up but I've made my point

[SteveLyric2]

A good result for the Gladiators.

Does that give them a chance of the play-offs? 

Edited August 11 by Skidder1

[Beirao]

Point of information - if Baek had been excluded in heat 5 instead of Smith , the 3-3 would have become a Glasgow 4-2 so Glasgow would have ONE extra point not two. 

[MB723]

12 minutes ago, Beirao said:

Point of information - if Baek had been excluded in heat 5 instead of Smith , the 3-3 would have become a Glasgow 4-2 so Glasgow would have ONE extra point not two. 

And Plymouth would have one less point so Glasgow would have a net gain of 2 points

[Neila]

1 minute ago, MB723 said:

And Plymouth would have one less point so Glasgow would have a net gain of 2 points

But Glasgow still got beat, get over it you can't have a replay 

[MB723]

Just now, Neila said:

But Glasgow still got beat, get over it you can't have a replay 

I'm a Glasgow fan, not used to seeing replays anyway 

[Beirao]

5 minutes ago, MB723 said:

And Plymouth would have one less point so Glasgow would have a net gain of 2 points

The point sckocjasid was making was if the ref excluded Baek, Glasgow have 2 more points.

[ruckerroo]

2 hours ago, Beirao said:

What makes you say that? 

Maybe last yr they had the potential to win and moved heaven and earth too succeed . Spose it's hard to break up a winning side in all honesty 

[IronScorpion]

17 hours ago, SharpenRake said:

Horley is a total joke

 

17 hours ago, Gazc said:

She has done her best to ruin which was an entertaining meeting.

She makes Scottish football refs look half competent.

And a "local" referee helps Glasgow to a win against Scunthorpe a few weeks ago.

[Gazc]

8 minutes ago, IronScorpion said:

 

And a "local" referee helps Glasgow to a win against Scunthorpe a few weeks ago.

To be fair the officiating was as dubious that night also.

[MD]

1 hour ago, IronScorpion said:

 

And a "local" referee helps Glasgow to a win against Scunthorpe a few weeks ago.

You've reminded me to ask if Godfrey ever got a fine for publicly criticising the ref. I suspect the answer is no and if the case Cami can likewise expect no comeback, can't he?

[Gazc]

7 hours ago, Beirao said:

The point sckocjasid was making was if the ref excluded Baek, Glasgow have 2 more points.

It’s crystal Baal stuff, as Jaizer said what motivation did our riders have in heat 15 after the heat 14 debacle.

He is saying a lot but it’s all ifs , buts and maybes, to be honest I know he is putting his point over with every scenario as he sees it but I stopped reading it after the first paragraph.

[drew2]

16 hours ago, Cornishman said:

Re the Baek incident in heat 14, this was right in front of us and I had a perfect view. Jenkins 100% took Baek’s leg out as he dive bombed into turn 3, so it was definitely the right decision. 
 

Jenkins then lost control, partly as a result of that clash, and had to put the bike down, unfortunately in front of Joe who could do nothing but run over him. 
 

It looked horrendous from up close and whatever the result, I was just glad to see them all walk off the track. 
 

The Smith exclusion around heat 4-5 however was very harsh on Glasgow! First/second bend and little (if any) contact!

Pretty much spot on Cornishman I reckon. I was stood on the back straight and as they entered bend three Jenkins took Patrick's leg away and was so close to Joe had to turn left over the white line. At that point Jenkins was excluded in my eyes and the rest is unfortunate for Joe as much as anyone as may have ended up with some broken bones and a bent bike whilst winning a race. I am guessing the non awarding of the 5-0 at that point also cost Joe his 3 points in ££'s as well. Hooky probably didn't mind though! Good to see them all walk away too.

I actually said to Gazza afterwards that it was lucky he hadn't done his usual reserve swapping bringing Hook in for Baek in Heat 14 as he wouldn't have been able to field two fit riders. Patrick's excellent ride in heat nine to beat Anders, which he most certainly enjoyed, saved that happening!

The heat 5 call was baffling to say the least even as a Gladiators fan?? Can't explain that one but didn't think Jack knocked Baek off.

Good meeting overall, far more passing than I saw at Poole last Wednesday. Bomber was classy as always and think the unofficial Cornish Championship was two apiece in the end! Bomber certainly explored some of the outer limits of the 3rd and 4th bend and it is starting to work a little bit more now as it beds in. Thought Mark had the track looking pretty good last night.