colincooke 0 Posted October 14, 2010 (edited) Matty boy is just a little kid who's crying to all his freinds cos somebody took his toys away. Just the same as his club took away the firework display & champagne when they lost, boo-hoo -hoo Edited October 14, 2010 by colincooke Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj350z 2,266 Posted October 14, 2010 You don't want to be accused of bone fiddling too. Cracking!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tyke 275 Posted October 14, 2010 Can someone please tell me EXACTLY which rule has been broken here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
home straight 290 Posted October 14, 2010 Can someone please tell me EXACTLY which rule has been broken here. None. it's all rather pathetic frankly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Leslie 3,213 Posted October 14, 2010 Can someone please tell me EXACTLY which rule has been broken here. "Thou must not beat Poole when Fat Maud and Smithers Shovlar think it's in the bag" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,820 Posted October 14, 2010 Can someone please tell me EXACTLY which rule has been broken here. NOT ONE!!!!! Just Poole (or certain Poole promoters and fans) claiming that Roscoe lied when saying Pawlicki was injured. Even if he wasnt injured he was allowed to replaced by a number 8 - ANYTIME! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
21st century heathen 220 Posted October 14, 2010 Peter Adams neither mentioned, nor was questioned on, the Pawlicki situation in that piece. It was put to him that Adam Skornicki riding against Swindon gave Sqora a 12-match average, to possible future disadvantage, and his response was as outlined. I can understand people drawing an inference, but to say Adams "put pen to paper to moan about Pawlicki" is not the case. Unless he's done so elsewhere! Oh c'mon mate. It's obvious what he's referring to. Everybody is free to read it and make up their own minds though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tyke 275 Posted October 14, 2010 So none were broken, just that Coventry were ahead of the game so to speak. So it's the law makers who are at fault - I see. And the law maker's are !!!!! OH speedway you couldn't make it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,820 Posted October 14, 2010 So none were broken, just that Coventry were ahead of the game so to speak. So it's the law makers who are at fault - I see. And the law maker's are !!!!! OH speedway you couldn't make it up. unless they tailor rules to suit ALL or just dictate the rules this will happen year after year after year ........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
houdi 535 Posted October 14, 2010 I think Matt Ford has raised a brilliant point about how easily it is to manipulate the average system. 21st, the point made by Peter Adams was more to do with Adam Skornicki's high average for 2011, he prefers to stick to the intergery of the rules, rather than using them for his own benefit. He uses Pawlicki at Coventry as to why he couldn't allow Adam to miss the 12th meeting. In the last few years we have seen some blatent 'rule bending' from Poole and Coventry. It seems to be OK if you're own team, but if It's someone else's it's not. Rule Bending is not cheating, It's just making the rules work for you. Therefore, I can't see the BSPA giving Pawlicki his average, but possibly changing the rules to only allow your number 8 to cover if your number 6 or 7 is actually injured, and the case for giving R/R in tha main body of the team examined and not given if the rider is found to be 'taking one for the team'. Unless of course Wolves have no intention of using Skornicki next year,in which case Skornicki new average won't affect Wolves at all.Didn't Belle Vue only use Hougaard 11 times in 2008,to 'protect' his average for 2009,yet that seems to have escaped any scrutiny.Plus as already been pointed out on here before, Davey Watt circa 2003/04,average was protected by the sport's own moral guardian,an inconvenient fact,conveniently overlooked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,820 Posted October 14, 2010 Davey Watt circa 2003/04,average was protected by the sport's own moral guardian,an inconvenient fact,conveniently overlooked. Exactly. the RULES suit some teams more than others. But dont bitch if it works against you - particularly if you have exploited it in the past. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted October 14, 2010 After the Peterborough meeting he rode in Poland. But then was left out of the meeting at Swindon due to his "injury". Telegraphed from the moon of course, it was as clear to see as Barker laying sprawn on the track till the light came on. Steve, Shamek didn't ride in an individual meeting between the 2 Peterborough meetings - which was the week of the Swindon meeting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Jasper 192 Posted October 14, 2010 After the Peterborough meeting he rode in Poland. But then was left out of the meeting at Swindon due to his "injury". Telegraphed from the moon of course, it was as clear to see as Barker laying sprawn on the track till the light came on. What meeting was it? I genuinely dont know. Could it have been an official Polish meeting, you know the type where they are permitted to ride otherwise they get punished, When was the meeting in question< and whats wrong with us using a number 8 to give somebody a rest? Why did Havelock come in for one meeting as a nuimber 8 replacement? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frigbo 518 Posted October 14, 2010 He rode in Germany on the 19th, can't find anything about any Polish meeting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Shovlar 10,439 Posted October 14, 2010 He rode in Germany on the 19th, can't find anything about any Polish meeting. OK it wasn't Poland it was Germany. Still, he managed to win the meeting with his "terrible hand injury". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
