Pawlicki And His Average Manipulation

[eastern wolf 0]

That "rule" never existed. This rule (#8 at any time) has been used many times by a few clubs. It's just an extention of the rule that has always allowed a team to use a 3 point "junior" at any time.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying, SCB. It's just that in better times for the sport I remember that you usually went to a meeting knowing that a team would track its 1-7 (injury and world championship commitments excepted). Perhaps my memory plays tricks but I can't remember clubs resting riders for tactical reasons.

 

Perhaps I should go back and live in the 60s and 70s

[Barney Rabbit 725]

Why do you think teams have to have a number 8?

 

Where does it say that?

 

17.4.5 ........ A Declared Line-Up may include a pair of “Doubling-Up Riders” and a #8, both of whom at the at the time of (re)declaration must be in a Premier League Declared 1 – 7. In the case of the Doubling-Up Riders, both must have a final 2008 PL CMA of 8.00 or less and the CMA of #8 must not exceed that of the lowest declared Rider (by CMA) and in any case must have a final 2008 PL CMA of 9.00 or less.

17.4.5.1

 

 

May = optional

Have to = compulsory.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Barney Rabbit

[bigcatdiary 3,164]

Where does it say that?

 

17.4.5 ........ A Declared Line-Up may include a pair of “Doubling-Up Riders” and a #8, both of whom at the at the time of (re)declaration must be in a Premier League Declared 1 – 7. In the case of the Doubling-Up Riders, both must have a final 2008 PL CMA of 8.00 or less and the CMA of #8 must not exceed that of the lowest declared Rider (by CMA) and in any case must have a final 2008 PL CMA of 9.00 or less.

17.4.5.1

 

 

May = optional

Have to = compulsory.

 

 

Yet another classic example of a rule poorly written but teams are required to have a no 8, although Poole managed without one for quite a period of 2009

[SCB 0]

Where does it say that?

 

17.4.5 ........ A Declared Line-Up may include a pair of “Doubling-Up Riders” and a #8, both of whom at the at the time of (re)declaration must be in a Premier League Declared 1 – 7. In the case of the Doubling-Up Riders, both must have a final 2008 PL CMA of 8.00 or less and the CMA of #8 must not exceed that of the lowest declared Rider (by CMA) and in any case must have a final 2008 PL CMA of 9.00 or less.

17.4.5.1

 

 

May = optional

Have to = compulsory.

I've pointed that out before and been informed it's a missprint

 

But even so, change the question to, "Why do you think teams are allowed to have a number 8?"

[eastern wolf 0]

I've pointed that out before and been informed it's a missprint

 

But even so, change the question to, "Why do you think teams are allowed to have a number 8?"

 

 

I would have said it was as a stand-by when teams are using R/R or when neither double-upper is available. I'm sure when the #8 rules were introduced it wasn't meant to allow teams to track a weakened team as Coventry (and of course not only Coventry) have done in order to protect riders' averages.

[Barney Rabbit 725]

I've pointed that out before and been informed it's a missprint

 

But even so, change the question to, "Why do you think teams are allowed to have a number 8?"

 

Oh, a missprint! Yeah, right. Probably only since Pratt wanted to use it to have a squad system.

 

Why have a #8, let eastern wolf answer that:-

 

 

 

I would have said it was as a stand-by when teams are using R/R or when neither double-upper is available. I'm sure when the #8 rules were introduced it wasn't meant to allow teams to track a weakened team as Coventry (and of course not only Coventry) have done in order to protect riders' averages.

 

Is the right answer.

 

Why is the only reference to a #8 in Rule 17 contained within the section concerning double-uppers (apart from the next one about re-declaration)?

 

That's the crux of the matter - was the rule meant as eastern wolf posts or that a team can operate an any 7 from 9 policy to circumvent average regulations?

[dirt 0]

32 pages and still none the wiser? good old rules and regulations ...youv gotta love it.

[fullbore 129]

Oh I think we're much wiser-

 

Coventry used the rules to their advantage and Steve just can't stop moaning about it.

 

If Poole had done exactly the same thing he wouldn't stop gloating about how wonderful and astute the Poole management were

 

Niamh

[iris123 20,935]

The best example to use would be Wolbert in the PL who missed a meeting through “illness” which prevent him from racing 12 meetings, yet came back on his assessed average.

 

 

Yeah,but Kevin really did have guts ache.I work here and quite a few of my colleagues regularly get a guts ache as well.If you ate german food too often you would understand

[dirt 0]

The Poole management havent had a good run.

For a supposed super team - it seems like they just sat back and hoped it would happen. In hindsight they should of tried to dispose of cov in the semi, instead of letting the bees gain more confidence by beating a bunch of bottelers called peterborough.

 

The first leg of the final, with the tac ride wasted was a sign of complacency or desperation or hope more than anything. And the mood got worse from then on.

 

The final home leg was further example of mismanagement with the core 3 riders doing well to make it back from Prague, let along get some sleep and ride at their peak.

 

Darcy also having little left in the tank from his heroics in Prague on the saturday and further spins in the Golden Helmet on sunday!!!!

 

Maybe the management of Poole should be under the hammer more than a lucky break for the cov team.

 

I am sure most Poole fans would have laughed off cov earlier on, evan with poor licki at reserve?

[hans fan 1,001]

The Poole management havent had a good run.

For a supposed super team - it seems like they just sat back and hoped it would happen. In hindsight they should of tried to dispose of cov in the semi, instead of letting the bees gain more confidence by beating a bunch of bottelers called peterborough.

 

peterborough got beat by a better more determined team... weren't good enough...ward had his assed kicked by the bees did he bottle it

[TrueBee 147]

peterborough got beat by a better more determined team... weren't good enough...ward had his assed kicked by the bees did he bottle it

 

Plus the aggregate score against the Panthers was closer

[Authorised 60]

Some great memories of the 2010 season......hmmmm, go to the forum and stir up some bad feelings about Coventry! Credit to John Leslie.

 

[dirt 0]

peterborough got beat by a better more determined team... weren't good enough...ward had his assed kicked by the bees did he bottle it

on paper they werent better, and peterborough looked better!

Peterborough even bottled the track prep, and helped cov instead of helping peterborough.

They almost stayed with cov at brandon too, and just choked in the last 3 rides, and gifted them a big lead, then tried too hard to make a grippy track at EOES, and it played straight into cov hands and they thrived and Peterborough looked like ducks out of water on their own track.

 

Who said Ward bottled it? Only a silly silly little kid would say that, as Ward was the youngest one riding out of both teams.

[bazaar3 0]

Harris 7.85

KK 8.55

Barker 5.70

Pawlicki 6.18

Auty 3.0

Larsen 4.84

Plus one. 6.38 left.

 

 

Kennett probably. How can Harris be on a 7.85 or is that with the British reduction rule?

 

Looks strong, if I was Ipswich next season I would be worried....