2006 - Rules ?

[SCB 0]

Interesting bit from an interview on the Speadwayplus site:

 

So why is Speedway so successful and well attended in Poland? ....most importantly consistently stick by these rules.

Flippen heck, that is intresting! Never going to happen though, unles they bring in a rule that says any rule can be over turned on the toss of a coin!

 

British Speedways achillies heel is that the rules are ignored so often, people moan about it but when it happens they stick up for it!

[Dr Cyclops 0]

i have watched many meetings in poland and it is far better than england. the problem with english speedway is the people that run.

[TonyM 0]

WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN 2006

 

NEW FORMAT

 

Name the riders according to their averages and list them in the programme in order. Should a rider be replaced, the new rider takes up the number according to his average in the team.

 

Wolves v Ipswich 2005 as example

 

Mikael Max 1 Piotr Protasiewicz

David Howe 2 Hans Andersen

Steve Johnston 3 Chris Louis

Fredrik Lindgren 4 Kim Jansson

Ronnie Correy 5 Karol Baran

Krzysztof Pecyna 6 Robert Miskowiak

Magnus Karlsson 7 Daniel King

 

Riders in Red and Green are programmed rides while the team manager must give each of his team a nominated ride (Blue and Yellow) in each half.

 

Heat 15 is the usual nominated ride.

 

HT01; Howe ? Protasiewicz ?

HT02; Karlsson ? King ?

HT03; Max ? Andersen ?

HT04; Correy ? Miskowiak ?

HT05; Lindgren ? Louis ?

HT06; Pecyna ? Baran ?

HT07; Johnston ? Jansson ?

 

HT08; Karlsson ? King ?

HT09; Correy ? Baran ?

HT10; Johnston ? Louis ?

HT11; Pecyna ? Miskowiak ?

HT12; Howe ? Andersen ?

HT13; Max ? Protasiewicz ?

HT14; Lindgren ? Jansson ?

 

HT15;

 

TACTICAL BENEFITS

 

This will bring out the best in tactical moves by a team manager. Does he put a heat leader in with his number 7 or does he put out his number 5 ?

 

Does he leave his number one till heat 14 to give him the last three heats, thus ensuring a strong finish and possibly a tactical ride in 13 or 14.

 

Does he give the available inside gates to the lower numbers and leave the top riders with an outside gate, or vica-versa ?

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I like the principal, perhaps a variation could be moving to six man teams (may this be a better way of reducing costs for PL) with all riders having a scheduled 5 rides. First 'half' would be a pairs style event with 3 pairs riding against each of the opposition pairs. Second 'half' would follow your idea above with six heats with each rider matched against his opposite number, who partners each rider is left to the team management. This would give a natural break in proceedings after heat 9 and rules could be brought in for the side in the lead (normally the home team) to submit their riding order for the remaining races to both the referee and opposition within (say) 10mins of the end of heat 9, the losing (away) team would then have a further (say) 5 mins to submit their riding order

 

Variations could be brought in to allow for who could be nominated ie if a team is 10 points down then they can select any 2 riders to have 2 nominated rides or similar such ideas

 

This would also satisty AndyM's valid point that averages are skewed by riding position and not riding ability with all riders riding against every one of the opposition team at least once and the second half being a random(ish) selection depending on different teams tactics (would you choose to have a heat 13 style match up or would you have your 'top' riders protecting the reserves?)

[Kevin Meynell 2]

I like the principal, perhaps a variation could be moving to six man teams

 

I'm not a great fan of scheduling heats according to rider averages, because it takes away the tactical possibilities of pairing certain riders together. It also doesn't take into account the fact that some riders ride better together than others, although team riding is of course largely non-existent these days anyway.

 

I do agree though, that the current heat format is not fantastic, and rather skews averages. The old 13-heat format was actually fairly balanced (although quirky), but it's actually pretty difficult to extend this into a 15 or 16-heat match.

 

I'd therefore be in favour of trying 6-rider teams again. I did devise a 6-rider, 14/15/16-heat format for the Speedway Meeting program where Nos. 1 to 4 ride against each other twice, and against the reserves once. Conversely, the reserves (Nos 5 & 6) ride against each other twice, and against the Nos. 1 to 4 once. As riders in each category (heat-leaders/second-strings and reserves) would ride against each other the same number of times, team managers would be free to nominate their riders where they choose (subject to the reserves having to ride at Nos 5 & 6).

 

For example...

 

1: 1 & 2 v 1 & 2

2: 3 & 4 v 3 & 4

3: 5 & 6 v 5 & 6 (Reserves Race)

4: 1 & 2 v 3 & 4

5: 3 & 4 v 1 & 2

6: 1 & 5 v 3 & 6

7: 2 & 4 v 1 & 5

8: 3 & 6 v 2 & 4

9: 2 & 4 v 3 & 6

10: 1 & 5 v 2 & 4

11: 3 & 6 v 1 & 5

12: 2 & 4 v 2 & 4

13: 3 & 6 v 3 & 6

14: 1 & 5 v 1 & 5

----------------------

15: Nominated

----------------------

15: Lowest scorers

16: Highest scorers

 

As

 

Then for the second-half (if the 14-heat option was chosen), the heats would be determined by average...

 

15: 4 juniors (Juniors Race)

16: Home No.1, Home No.4, Away No.5, Junior 1

17: Home No.5, Junior 2, Away No.1, Away No.4

18: Home No.2, Home No.3 v Away No.6, Junior 3

19: Home No.6, Junior 4 v Away No.2, Away No.3

20: Winners Heats 16-18 (Final)

Edited November 8, 2005 by Kevin Meynell

[TonyM 0]

I'm not a great fan of scheduling heats according to rider averages, because it takes away the tactical possibilities of pairing certain riders together. It also doesn't take into account the fact that some riders ride better together than others, although team riding is of course largely non-existent these days anyway.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Totally agree that team riding is something of a lost art - no reason that the 'pairs' in my example HAD to be 1+2, 3+4 and 5+6 - essentially they are just a way of getting a 2x2 race (real speedway), so if for example a team wanted their no 1 to ride with their no 4 this would be no problem as they each race against the opposition PAIRS

 

I like your 14 heat format but it does leave reserves with only 4 rides, depends on your view of team building - I prefer 6 riders but there is certainly an arguement for 4 + 2 'reserves', although IMO this is sometimes abused with sides looking for a false average reserve to have seven rides in a meeting. I would prefer to see any lower average rider able to replace a higher average rider throughout the team with a limit of (say) twice per team per meeting (in my format this would be in the nominated element, giving extra flexibility to team managers).

 

I have never been a big fan of the final nominated race - loads of hanging around for the obvious suspects to be announced and would be easier to schedule a 'decent' heat at 14 or 15 instead

[Kevin Meynell 2]

I would prefer to see any lower average rider able to replace a higher average rider throughout the team with a limit of (say) twice per team per meeting

 

It's not a bad idea, although there's a danger that being able to replace riders at will would also make it less of a team event.

 

I have never been a big fan of the final nominated race - loads of hanging around for the obvious suspects to be announced and would be easier to schedule a 'decent' heat at 14 or 15 instead

 

To be honest, I'm ambivalent about the nominated heat. It's okay if you need to make up the number of heats in some way, but equally I think a 'decent' programmed heat would be fine. I totally agree that the delay before the nominated heat is irritating.

[Trees 2,814]

It's not always dead obvious who's going to be in the nominated heat. It also gives riders, not always the top boys, the chance of earning some extra dosh on a good night, which is a good thing imo.

 

GM & KM - You two aren't very tolerant, it's a modern phenomenon, no patience ....... or is it a "male" thing ........ tch!

[Kevin Meynell 2]

GM & KM - You two aren't very tolerant, it's a modern phenomenon, no patience ....... or is it a "male" thing

 

Well perhaps it's a male thing, but certainly not a modern thing. I remember when we used to get through 20 heats by 21.30 (starting at 19.45) at Oxford. Nowadays, you're lucky if Heat 15 has finished by 21.45.

 

I guess pointless delays are less of an issue when it's a warm, sunny evening and you're able to chat with your mates (the ones that still go, that is), but they're extremely annoying when you're standing in the cold and dark.

[TonyM 0]

It's not always dead obvious who's going to be in the nominated heat.  It also gives riders, not always the top boys, the chance of earning some extra dosh on a good night, which is a good thing imo.

 

GM & KM - You two aren't very tolerant, it's a modern phenomenon, no patience ....... or is it a "male" thing ........ tch! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry more of a 'parent' thing if anything which looking at the time between the end of heat 14 and the start of the victory lap can take in excess of 15 mins, not a lot of incentive to stay when the match is often over as a contest by the end of heat 14

 

Whilst it may not be dead obvious the rules are such that it isnt even nominating 2 from 7, more like 2 from 3 or 4 and I really dont see what takes all the time

 

1. Work out who is eligible

2. Talk to said riders (as we have seen at Lynn some riders prefer not to ride heat 15!)

3. Weigh up combinations (who rides well together etc)

4. Confirm gate positions

 

How can the above take sooooo long

[father jack 31]

One rule I would like to see changed is this silly doubling or halving of averages between the EL and PL. It can leave riders with averages they could never attain, eg. Ben Howe getting something like 11.90 . Maybe it would be best just to add or subtract 3 from a riders average, it would provide a more realistic figure. A 5 point EL rider could drop down with an average of 8, a 9 point PL rider could move up with an average of 6, seems fairer.

[enotian 562]

One rule I would like to see changed is this silly doubling or halving of averages between the EL and PL. It can leave riders with averages they could never attain, eg. Ben Howe getting something like 11.90 . Maybe it would be best just to add or subtract 3 from a riders average, it would provide a more realistic figure.  A 5 point EL rider could drop down with an average of 8, a 9 point PL rider could move up with an average of 6, seems fairer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Previously didn't they multiply or divide by 1.5 to assess riders swapping between leagues?

 

So If you're a 9 point PL rider you'd be a 6 point EL rider etc etc.

 

All depends on the relative standards in each league I suppose.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

Previously didn't they multiply or divide by 1.5 to assess riders swapping between leagues?

 

Yes. I think the problem is that riders moving from the BPL to BEL would struggle to achieve their average if it were assessed using a factor of 1.5, whereas it's more realistic for riders moving the other way.