Dave Robinson

[Gemini 4,894]

Edited for shonky spelling.

 

Love it.

[austrian hammer 0]

On other threads someone usually comes in with the fatuous question "Have you ever ridden a speedway bike?" which is intended as a fait accompli however, I think that on this subject such a comment (suitably modified) is justified. How many of the critics, including Kelvin Tatum and Nigel Pearson, have tried to referee a meeting?

 

It is easy to sit and watch a meeting and be the best referee the world have ever seen but it must be incredibly difficult when actually sitting where the referee is. Yes, on this occasion there were Sky cameras but even that is not foolproof and ultimately any decision has to be a matter of judgement. Sadly for all referees, no matter what sport, it is a thankless task and always open to comment from those who believe they know better.

 

I neither endorse any of the decisions made nor criticise them but am merely trying to point out that the referee has to make a decision in the full knowledge that there will a large number who disagree whatever that decision may be. Oh yes, I too am guilty of questioning decisions but am prepared to acknowledge how difficult the job is.

 

 

Agree totally with these points. Excellent post.

[lionheart 86]

one decision that should stand out for the rest of the season though is that any incident involving a poole rider automatically means the exclusion of that poole rider. no argument. we might just get a closer league.

 

 

Now THERE'S a novel way of ensuring closer matches

[foreverblue 6,096]

It's also the over the top notion that when someone makes a mistake they should be sacked from their job. For the record, I think the first decision should have been all 4, the second was also wrong (Pedersen should have been out), and Mroczka's exclusion was correct.

No its not an over the top notion as its not the first time,if i did a bad job over and over again i would expect to be sacked.

[Fourentee 987]

Any movement Artur made was barely noticable.

 

Must have been ever so slightly

 

Artur's exclusion. I've watched and re-watched this. He barely twitched,

 

I must, in fairness, commend the honesty of these Poole supporters who all agree that Mroczka moved a second time before exclusion. Well done.

[foreverblue 6,096]

Afraid that it isn't the bottom line.

 

Simply reading this thread will see many different points of view on ALL of the incidents.

 

And as for incompetent refereering making a sport look ridiculous... very far fetched comment. Are football, cricket & numerous other sports also ridiculous? They suffer from poor refereeing decisions also.

But in those other soprts the referee has to answer his actions but in speedway it is never questioned,i believe a premier league referee was demoted to championship football matches after a match where he made several mistakes.

[Bryn 413]

The bottom line is the referee was a joke and should be sacked,incompetence like this makes the sport look ridiculous.

Still i expect he will referee a gp soon no doubt.

 

I've had the pleasure of sitting alongside nigh on all the current British referees and others who no longer officiate 'foreverblue' when announcing at various tracks over the years, and I'm look forward to doing so with those I haven't done as yet, primarily the ones who have qualified this year, in due course.

My experience is that ALL referees, when called upon to adjudicate upon any incident occuring during the course of a meeting do so objectively, honestly and base any decisions they make in terms of how they view any particular incident from what they see from where they are standing / sitting.

Now from the tone of your posts 'foreverblue' you clearly aren't happy with many decisions referees make that go against the side you support and that probably is the case with most fans on the terraces, certainly immediately decisions are made, although on reflection some will honestly admit some such adverse decisions were possibly / probably right.

You advocate sacking of referees so I wonder if you are under the mistaken impression that referees are paid a 'living wage' for their services? THAT I can assure you is NOT the case. I would state with almost total certainty that most, if not all current referees combine their refereeing duties with a full time occupation.

Primarily they, like myself and most of the people who frequent this forum are, first and foremost, devotees of this sport. They decide that they both want to, and importantly have the time to get more involved as it were and thus volunteer to undergo a lengthy period of training, travelling to meetings learning 'the ropes' as it were alongside established referees and eventually undertake testing that they hope will lead to them qualifying to take control of meetings themselves as qualified referees.

ALL refs, even long established ones are independently 'assessed' periodically, as indeed they were last year. Now if your suggestion that those who make decisions that you don't agree with should be sacked, what happens then? Who'd replace them? You perhaps? The SCB as I understand it, are always willing to look at new applications but there's rarely, if ever, a stampede of those.

Referees aren't perfect but there again none of us are - or are we 'foreverblue?'

 

 

[Grachan 7,362]

I've had the pleasure of sitting alongside nigh on all the current British referees and others who no longer officiate 'foreverblue' when announcing at various tracks over the years, and I'm look forward to doing so with those I haven't done as yet, primarily the ones who have qualified this year, in due course.

My experience is that ALL referees, when called upon to adjudicate upon any incident occuring during the course of a meeting do so objectively, honestly and base any decisions they make in terms of how they view any particular incident from what they see from where they are standing / sitting.

Now from the tone of your posts 'foreverblue' you clearly aren't happy with many decisions referees make that go against the side you support and that probably is the case with most fans on the terraces, certainly immediately decisions are made, although on reflection some will honestly admit some such adverse decisions were possibly / probably right.

You advocate sacking of referees so I wonder if you are under the mistaken impression that referees are paid a 'living wage' for their services? THAT I can assure you is NOT the case. I would state with almost total certainty that most, if not all current referees combine their refereeing duties with a full time occupation.

Primarily they, like myself and most of the people who frequent this forum are, first and foremost, devotees of this sport. They decide that they both want to, and importantly have the time to get more involved as it were and thus volunteer to undergo a lengthy period of training, travelling to meetings learning 'the ropes' as it were alongside established referees and eventually undertake testing that they hope will lead to them qualifying to take control of meetings themselves as qualified referees.

ALL refs, even long established ones are independently 'assessed' periodically, as indeed they were last year. Now if your suggestion that those who make decisions that you don't agree with should be sacked, what happens then? Who'd replace them? You perhaps? The SCB as I understand it, are always willing to look at new applications but there's rarely, if ever, a stampede of those.

Referees aren't perfect but there again none of us are - or are we 'foreverblue?'

 

Good on 'em. Doesn't make them immune from criticism though - even if some of it is a little obsessive and not always correct. At the end of the day it is a professional sport, whether the referees are professional or not, so it is only right that it is going to attract comment.

 

I do sometimes question the sanity of some people who go on a bit of an "anti-ref" rampage mind you. I bet they've never even ridden a speedway bike.

 

[Fourentee 987]

I do sometimes question the sanity of some people who go on a bit of an "anti-ref" rampage mind you. I bet they've never even ridden a speedway bike.

 

Good effort, but no takers yet!

[foreverblue 6,096]

I've had the pleasure of sitting alongside nigh on all the current British referees and others who no longer officiate 'foreverblue' when announcing at various tracks over the years, and I'm look forward to doing so with those I haven't done as yet, primarily the ones who have qualified this year, in due course.

My experience is that ALL referees, when called upon to adjudicate upon any incident occuring during the course of a meeting do so objectively, honestly and base any decisions they make in terms of how they view any particular incident from what they see from where they are standing / sitting.

Now from the tone of your posts 'foreverblue' you clearly aren't happy with many decisions referees make that go against the side you support and that probably is the case with most fans on the terraces, certainly immediately decisions are made, although on reflection some will honestly admit some such adverse decisions were possibly / probably right.

You advocate sacking of referees so I wonder if you are under the mistaken impression that referees are paid a 'living wage' for their services? THAT I can assure you is NOT the case. I would state with almost total certainty that most, if not all current referees combine their refereeing duties with a full time occupation.

Primarily they, like myself and most of the people who frequent this forum are, first and foremost, devotees of this sport. They decide that they both want to, and importantly have the time to get more involved as it were and thus volunteer to undergo a lengthy period of training, travelling to meetings learning 'the ropes' as it were alongside established referees and eventually undertake testing that they hope will lead to them qualifying to take control of meetings themselves as qualified referees.

ALL refs, even long established ones are independently 'assessed' periodically, as indeed they were last year. Now if your suggestion that those who make decisions that you don't agree with should be sacked, what happens then? Who'd replace them? You perhaps? The SCB as I understand it, are always willing to look at new applications but there's rarely, if ever, a stampede of those.

Referees aren't perfect but there again none of us are - or are we 'foreverblue?'

I didn't say that if a referee made a couple of mistakes they should be sacked and i am not just looking at this from a biased point of view as i have been to many meetings where my team was not involved and the standard of some referees seems to be not as good as it should be.

 

Also it is my understanding that mr Robinson has a history of dubious or blatently wrong decisions and if that is the case then surely his competence must come into question.

 

I understand that it may only be a part time job and they largely do it for the love of the sport but there still has to be an element of accountability and has any referee been stood down after assessment.

[Bryn 413]

I didn't say that if a referee made a couple of mistakes they should be sacked and i am not just looking at this from a biased point of view as i have been to many meetings where my team was not involved and the standard of some referees seems to be not as good as it should be. *

 

Also it is my understanding that mr Robinson has a history of dubious or blatently wrong decisions and if that is the case then surely his competence must come into question. **

 

I understand that it may only be a part time job and they largely do it for the love of the sport but there still has to be an element of accountability and has any referee been stood down after assessment. ***

 

Fair enough 'foreverblue' BUT:

 

* Can you give us examples for possible discussion?

 

** Your understanding of 'blatently wrong decisions' is based on what evidence? Again have you any examples you can put up for discussion, other than those going against Poole?

 

*** I don't know personally whether any ref has / has not been stood down after assessment - why not try and have a word with any ref adjudicating at a match you attend in future, prior to the action getting underway, and ask him / her? I think you'll find that most, if not all, are approachable but do bear in mind that they have several tasks to undertake pre-,match such as track inspection, checking licences etc etc etc.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Bryn

[iris123 20,984]

My experience is that ALL referees, when called upon to adjudicate upon any incident occuring during the course of a meeting do so objectively, honestly and base any decisions they make in terms of how they view any particular incident from what they see from where they are standing / sitting.

Interesting 'Bryn'.How do you come to this absolute conclusion i wonder?Do all the referees speak out load as they sort out in their mind what has just happened or do you ask them after each incident or do they automatically tell you?

[Steve Shovlar 10,439]

Not sure Dave Robinson deserves 6 pages for a bad meeting. Every ref has bad meetings. Totally disagreed with his decision on Mrozcka in heat 12 but time to move on.

[wightlink flyer 12]

Why not just ensure that riders actually line up at the tapes.... not about a foot back... so that if they move, they touch the tape.

 

Think that would that ever work ??

 

[samthepalaceman2 0]

Not sure Dave Robinson deserves 6 pages for a bad meeting. Every ref has bad meetings. Totally disagreed with his decision on Mrozcka in heat 12 but time to move on.

 

I agree with you entirely, tbf, this could've been discussed in the meeting thread anyway.