|
Post by Mr X on May 12, 2011 20:26:47 GMT
Woo Hoo! Can't believe that. Bizarre decision not to use Klindt after he'd won heat 13. Well done to Ty and Ricky for the unexpected 5-1 in heat 14... and the demon duo in the last of course. We robbed 'em.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfie on May 13, 2011 11:28:30 GMT
Woo Hoo! Can't believe that. Bizarre decision not to use Klindt after he'd won heat 13. Well done to Ty and Ricky for the unexpected 5-1 in heat 14... and the demon duo in the last of course. We robbed 'em. Jesper B looked far quicker and better than Klindt all night which is probably why they went with him, but he totally missed the gate in Heat 15 - strange decision of the Robins to take 2 and 4 in that race - couldn't understand the logic behind that. Wolfie
|
|
|
Post by Wolfie on May 13, 2011 11:36:56 GMT
Another mugging in Blunsdon ;D ;D
Once again our Super Swedes rescued us.... but the use of PK as a TR in his R/R ride seemed a bit dodgy to me and a couple of other fans as this in effect gave Tai's R/R rides two Tactical Rides - Freddie took one in heat 8 as well.
However I presume the referee and Team Mangagers knew what they were doing.
Once again the second strings looked very slow - the ease with which the Swindon riders passed Proctor was very worrying - his Heat 14 win was mainly due to the fact that he made the gate and by then the track was very slick - as was shown by Freddie being unable to get past Klindt in Heat 13 despite being much faster.
Neither Proctor nor Luddie seem to be able to sort out their engines to make them faster and this is very frustrating to watch as we know that they are better than their scores - but just how long do you give them to sort things out as matches continue to slip by.
Tyson would probably have done well given his gating ability and how slick the track was after the mid point of the match.
Another super show by Fred and PK rescued us yet again.
Wolfie
|
|
|
Post by BWitcher on May 13, 2011 14:35:19 GMT
Woo Hoo! Can't believe that. Bizarre decision not to use Klindt after he'd won heat 13. Well done to Ty and Ricky for the unexpected 5-1 in heat 14... and the demon duo in the last of course. We robbed 'em. Jesper B looked far quicker and better than Klindt all night which is probably why they went with him, but he totally missed the gate in Heat 15 - strange decision of the Robins to take 2 and 4 in that race - couldn't understand the logic behind that. Wolfie What was Heat 13's time Wolfie? It can't be relied upon, but I based my opinion Klindt should have been in Heat 13 on the fact that updates showed that heat to be the fastest time of the night by some distance.. for that to be achieved in Heat 13 takes some doing. 65.58 I believe they had it as... Other reason why I wouldn't have gone for Monberg is he hadn't rode since Heat 10. However, you were there so in the best position to judge!
|
|
|
Post by Mr X on May 13, 2011 17:31:03 GMT
E&S tonight says Swindon are appealing the 2nd tactical ride but Adams is confident he is right. He checked beforehand (with the only man who has a rulebook*)
*I made that last bit up but it could be true.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfie on May 13, 2011 21:01:45 GMT
Jesper B looked far quicker and better than Klindt all night which is probably why they went with him, but he totally missed the gate in Heat 15 - strange decision of the Robins to take 2 and 4 in that race - couldn't understand the logic behind that. Wolfie What was Heat 13's time Wolfie? It can't be relied upon, but I based my opinion Klindt should have been in Heat 13 on the fact that updates showed that heat to be the fastest time of the night by some distance.. for that to be achieved in Heat 13 takes some doing. 65.58 I believe they had it as... Other reason why I wouldn't have gone for Monberg is he hadn't rode since Heat 10. However, you were there so in the best position to judge! I had Heat 13 down as 66.58....... Also Jesper won Heat 8 over Freddie in 65.77, although the Updates didn't record this on their site I see, so times wise there wasn't a lot between them in race wins over Fred. Nicolai had an awful Heat 11 when was almost a straight behind PK at the finish and nowhere near Gajcnoek even. Jesper just looked steadier and more consistent that Nic on the night and he is the choice that most of us there expected them to make. Wolfie
|
|
|
Post by BWitcher on May 13, 2011 21:38:38 GMT
Yeah, the radio coverage said he had bike problems in Heat 11 and had changed for Heat 13.
Regarding the tactical ruling.. the rule is as follows
'A Tactical Ride (TR)* ride is permitted after Heat 4; on the 1st occasion when a Team is 10 or more points in arrears and on a subsequent 2nd occasion when that Team is 12 or more points in arrears and allows a programmed Rider (including a Rider taking an RR) to be nominated as a TR. The TR Rider starts from the Starting Gate and Race points scored are doubled provided s/he finishes ahead of an Opponent. NB a non-finisher is an Opponent. * can only be taken by a Rider once (but see SR 18.9 d)'
I don't see anything there that would prevent us from doing as we did.
It has been pointed out on the BSF.. if we were to follow the ruling as Swindon are suggesting, i.e. you count the Tac ride that Fred took as a tac for Tai (the RR'd rider)... then Fred could take another one himself! Which of course would be dumb.
In my opinion, we have nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfie on May 13, 2011 22:06:59 GMT
Yeah, the radio coverage said he had bike problems in Heat 11 and had changed for Heat 13. Regarding the tactical ruling.. the rule is as follows 'A Tactical Ride (TR)* ride is permitted after Heat 4; on the 1st occasion when a Team is 10 or more points in arrears and on a subsequent 2nd occasion when that Team is 12 or more points in arrears and allows a programmed Rider (including a Rider taking an RR) to be nominated as a TR. The TR Rider starts from the Starting Gate and Race points scored are doubled provided s/he finishes ahead of an Opponent. NB a non-finisher is an Opponent. * can only be taken by a Rider once (but see SR 18.9 d)' I don't see anything there that would prevent us from doing as we did. It has been pointed out on the BSF.. if we were to follow the ruling as Swindon are suggesting, i.e. you count the Tac ride that Fred took as a tac for Tai (the RR'd rider)... then Fred could take another one himself! Which of course would be dumb. In my opinion, we have nothing to worry about. Going back a bit now to the time of old fashioned Tactical Substitutes I was at a match where one team put in a protest over a rider coming out as a Tac Sub in a R/R ride and the referee ruled that he could do this as riding as a R/R the rider was taking the ride of the R/R rider who would himself have been eligible for a Tac Sub - hope that is understandable. This would seem to indicate that riders taking R/R rides are effectively riding on behalf of the rider they are replacing R/R - I know that sounds common sense but it would also seem to indicate that the R/R rides are treated as if the rider himself is taking them - which would also indicate that only one R/R ride should be taken as a Tactical Ride. I hope that is clear - I know is sounds complicated. I have found the 2011 Speedway Regulations online and they do not appear to include any SR 18.9d anymore and in fact I haven't been able to find any reference at all in them to the Tactical Ride Regulations - so perhaps they have all agreed to make it up as they go along !! Wolfie
|
|
|
Post by BWitcher on May 14, 2011 17:00:43 GMT
The rules are there Wolfie.
Sections 18 and 19 are seperate however.
And they show, quite clearly, we have done nothing wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfie on May 15, 2011 9:22:11 GMT
The rules are there Wolfie. Sections 18 and 19 are seperate however. And they show, quite clearly, we have done nothing wrong. 2011 Speedway Regulations are here: www.scbgb.co.uk/files/rulebook.pdfNo mention in these anywhere of Tactical Rides. Like everything else perhaps they are going to make it up as they go along. Purely on common sense the second TR on Tai's rides still seems dodgy to me - but when have spedway rules been based on common sense ;D ;D Wolfie
|
|
|
Post by BWitcher on May 15, 2011 13:21:23 GMT
Why on common sense? If you are saying that the first tac ride we used was for Tai.. (the one that Fred took).. then that would have meant Fred could have taken one of his own in Heat 11! Surely one rider taking 2 tac rides is less common sense than what we did? As for the rules, as I said, sections 17 and 18 are not included in the pdf. There is a note saying they will be posted seperately. Here is the link www.scbgb.co.uk/files/21.pdfHope that helps!
|
|
|
Post by Wolfie on May 15, 2011 16:03:17 GMT
The rules are there Wolfie. Sections 18 and 19 are seperate however. And they show, quite clearly, we have done nothing wrong. 2011 Speedway Regulations are here: www.scbgb.co.uk/files/rulebook.pdfNo mention in these anywhere of Tactical Rides. Like everything else perhaps they are going to make it up as they go along. Purely on common sense the second TR on Tai's rides still seems dodgy to me - but when have spedway rules been based on common sense ;D ;D Wolfie Can see that we are going to have to agree to have differing points of view on this.... As I see it the R/R rides are in place of the missing rider and therefore subject of the same rules as if the rider was there, which means that Tai's rides were only eligible for one TR - and a posting on another forum says that such an instance in a match involving Newport was picked upon and the second TR for a R/R was stopped. No doubt something will be done to firm up on this rule in the future. Wolfie
|
|
|
Post by BWitcher on May 15, 2011 17:10:39 GMT
Wolfie,
Points of view are irrelevant.
All the counts is the rule. Which I have posted.. and you continue to say does not exist....
Peter Adams clarified the rule prior to the meeting with the SCB chairman Graham Reeve. Reeve told him what we did was fine. He also spoke to the referee at 7pm on the night of the meeting, informing him of the possibility, inviting him to check with Reeve if necessary. The referee agreed it was fine.
Just because another referee got it wrong earlier in the season, does not make what we did incorrect.
To clear this up...
You are advocating a tac ride counting for a rider who is not even in the meeting? That's daft even for speedway standards!
As I have said, and again which you keep ignoring.. do you think it makes more sense for one rider (and by rider I mean a programmed rider actually participating in the meeting) to have TWO tac rides? Because that is what can be done following the non-existent rule which you believe should be applied!
|
|
|
Post by Wolfie on May 15, 2011 22:37:20 GMT
Wolfie, Points of view are irrelevant. All the counts is the rule. Which I have posted.. and you continue to say does not exist.... Peter Adams clarified the rule prior to the meeting with the SCB chairman Graham Reeve. Reeve told him what we did was fine. He also spoke to the referee at 7pm on the night of the meeting, informing him of the possibility, inviting him to check with Reeve if necessary. The referee agreed it was fine. Just because another referee got it wrong earlier in the season, does not make what we did incorrect. To clear this up... You are advocating a tac ride counting for a rider who is not even in the meeting? That's daft even for speedway standards! As I have said, and again which you keep ignoring.. do you think it makes more sense for one rider (and by rider I mean a programmed rider actually participating in the meeting) to have TWO tac rides? Because that is what can be done following the non-existent rule which you believe should be applied! Such bombastic comments are exactly the reason why this forum is dying on this feet. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on a matter - an opinion that was shared by others at the track and it also seems that the Swindon promotion shared it and indeed Graham Reeve who gave the initial view seems to have changed his mind on the matter. Trying to steamroller your point of view onto others doesn't win any argument - I'm prepared to accept that you are entitled to a different point of view to me - its a pity that you are unable to do the same. Any further discussion is pointless due to your inability to accept that others are entitled to a point of view different to yours. Wolfie
|
|
|
Post by BWitcher on May 16, 2011 12:37:25 GMT
Oh dear Wolfie.
Many of us on here have different points of view, however, we are capable of debating them. Not burying our heads in the sand and ignoring when our points of view are challenged.
Your refusal to acknowledge basic questions speaks volumes.
You've claimed the rule doesn't exist.. when it does.
Have you read the rule? If so, point to the section of the rule that backs up what you are saying.
Then when you stated that in your opinion its only common sense that you should not be allowed to use tac rides in the R/R slot twice, I merely challenged this by asking you if if made more sense for one rider (Freddie) to take 2 tac rides in a meeting. Its a simple question, one that you choose to completely ignore.
Anyhow, have a safe trip to Lakeside and enjoy the meeting.
|
|