What Happens When A Rider Is Missing?

[barrow boy 119]

I read somewhere that if a rider got injured in his first ride only and could not continue he could be replaced by RR from that point and I think it was a promoter that said this.

[500cc 309]

I m told el teams have to start every meeting with 7 riders NO r/r before meeting started

14 riders !!! Will there be enough room in the pits for these extra riders. And think about the increased mileage claims the promoters face from these extra riders.

[mdmc82 2,878]

I read somewhere that if a rider got injured in his first ride only and could not continue he could be replaced by RR from that point and I think it was a promoter that said this.

Read the same but only if its your number 1 rider that gets injured so that its more competitive. Any other rider it is still reserves.

[houdi 535]

GRW123, on 12 Feb 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:GRW123, on 12 Feb 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

 

I was at that meeting, it was spoken about, but I was under the impression that it COULD be the case, no way was it CONFIRMED

That is my understanding that no apparent final decision has yet been made. If they stick with the original ruling then for example if Peter Ljung was missing for Leicester 3 of his rides would have to be taken by Perry and Clegg. Not sure having races where these 2 basically juniors ending up having to face Iversen/Bjerre/Schlein will do a lot to enhance the sport. By having the reserves in protected races was an admission that they couldn't be expect to compete with the likes of Ward/Woffinden, so suddenly expecting them to take R/R rides would be nonsensical.

Edited February 13, 2014 by houdi

[BANANAMAN 330]

That is my understanding that no apparent final decision has yet been made. If they stick with the original ruling then for example if Peter Ljung was missing for Leicester 3 of his rides would have to be taken by Perry and Clegg. Not sure having races where these 2 basically juniors ending up having to face Iversen/Bjerre/Schlein will do a lot to enhance the sport. By having the reserves in protected races was an admission that they couldn't be expect to compete with the likes of Ward/Woffinden, so suddenly expecting them to take R/R rides would be nonsensical.

Our sport will no doubt blunder through this mess ............I think it was all written down on the back of a fag packet but the cleaner threw it in the bin when tidying up !!

[Vincent Blachshadow 2,937]

That is my understanding that no apparent final decision has yet been made. If they stick with the original ruling then for example if Peter Ljung was missing for Leicester 3 of his rides would have to be taken by Perry and Clegg. Not sure having races where these 2 basically juniors ending up having to face Iversen/Bjerre/Schlein will do a lot to enhance the sport. By having the reserves in protected races was an admission that they couldn't be expect to compete with the likes of Ward/Woffinden, so suddenly expecting them to take R/R rides would be nonsensical.

 

We have been 'reliably' informed on here that this will not happen, that no way will a reserve face a #1.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Vincent Blackshadow

[waiheke1 4,295]

 

We have been 'reliably' informed on here that this will not happen, that no way will a reserve face a #1.

Not true. We've been told they wont have any of their scheduled rides against heat leaders.

But r/r rides or as replacement for tape offences, there is no way to avoid them meeting heat leaders without a major overhaul of the rules.

[Vincent Blachshadow 2,937]

Not true. We've been told they wont have any of their scheduled rides against heat leaders.

But r/r rides or as replacement for tape offences, there is no way to avoid them meeting heat leaders without a major overhaul of the rules.

 

Yes, I accept that. I queried this and, once again, was told in no uncertain terms that reserves won't meet #1s at all. I did ask where I/we could see this but was informed it was a work in progress and won't happen.

 

http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=75437&page=13

 

Starts at post 191, but post 208 tells us in no uncertain terms it won't happen.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Vincent Blackshadow

[waiheke1 4,295]

 

Yes, I accept that. I queried this and, once again, was told in no uncertain terms that reserves won't meet #1s at all. I did ask where I/we could see this but was informed it was a work in progress and won't happen.

 

http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=75437&page=13

 

Starts at post 191, but post 208 tells us in no uncertain terms it won't happen.

Yes, but I think the fact you were told this does not necessarily mean thats the case. I suspect tsunami didn't read your second post correctly. For it to be impossible for a reserve to meet a number 1, the rules would have to prohibit a reserve from being able to replace a top 5 member even in the event of injury or tape infringement- I cant imagine that will be the case

[Astill lodge lion 18]

Leicesters biggest problem is when their fixtures clash with Cradley because both their reserves Max Clegg & Tom Perry ride for the same team in NL. Which would mean DOUBLE guest at reserve.

I don't think this is the case. Jon Cook said a few months back :-

priority for 2014 is now with the owning club in ELvPL clashes, if neither own rider then PL comes 1st. ELvNL is EL 1st.

 

Which says to me that EL teams always take priority over the NL even if the rider is an asset of the NL team.

[ballinger 32]

There's so much that needs consideration with the new EL format this season. Protected races for 6 & 7 meaning more Heat Leaders vs Heat Leaders races is just one element.

 

Personally I see the requirement for the 5th rider (by CMA) to be a type of supplementary reserve that can come in the event of a tape break / 2 min exclusion.

 

Should 5,6,or 7 break tape then only option would be 15m handicap.

 

In the event of a DU rider missing then only viable option IMO is a guest, or maybe 2 riders share a DU position like it was in the past.

 

With regards to what happens in the event of an injury, how's about this.

 

Riders 1 or 2 - RR covered by any other rider, each eligible to take 1 RR ride

 

Rider 3 - covered by 2,4,5 with 4 and 5 eligible for 2 RR rides

 

Rider 4 - covered by 3 (1 ride) and 5 (3 rides)

 

Rider 5 - 2 rides covered by 4 and 2 rides covered by 6 or 7

 

Whilst I agree totally that this last scenario isn't ideal I cannot see any other solution.

 

In the following example therefore, using Wolverhampton. Their 5th rider by CMA is Jacob Thorsell. Assuming Heat leaders are riding at team positions 1,3,& 5, Thorsell will line up at 2 or 4.

 

Assuming he crashes out in his first ride, which we will assume is still Heat 1, he isn't excluded from the race, just withdraws injured. His rides could then be covered by RR as follows.

 

1st ride (against opposition 1&2) - Rider 4 by CMA which I believe is Ricky Wells

 

2nd ride (against opposition 2 and 7 - ie the old Heat 8) replaced by rider 6 (Ash Morris)

 

3rd ride (against opposition 3&4 - ie the old Heat 10) - replaced by rider 4 by CMA (Ricky Wells)

 

4th ride (against a SS and a reserve) - replaced by rider 6 or 7

 

Because of this requirement to implement immediate RR once a meeting is underway I would suggest that any rider absence pre meeting has to be covered by a guest, or maybe even by another squad rider if teams ever decide to go down that route

Edited February 13, 2014 by ballinger

[g13webb 4,254]

There's so much that needs consideration with the new EL format this season. Protected races for 6 & 7 meaning more Heat Leaders vs Heat Leaders races is just one element.

 

Personally I see the requirement for the 5th rider (by CMA) to be a type of supplementary reserve that can come in the event of a tape break / 2 min exclusion.

 

Should 5,6,or 7 break tape then only option would be 15m handicap.

 

In the event of a DU rider missing then only viable option IMO is a guest, or maybe 2 riders share a DU position like it was in the past.

 

With regards to what happens in the event of an injury, how's about this.

 

Riders 1 or 2 - RR covered by any other rider, each eligible to take 1 RR ride

 

Rider 3 - covered by 2,4,5 with 4 and 5 eligible for 2 RR rides

 

Rider 4 - covered by 3 (1 ride) and 5 (3 rides)

 

Rider 5 - 2 rides covered by 4 and 2 rides covered by 6 or 7

 

Whilst I agree totally that this last scenario isn't ideal I cannot see any other solution.

 

In the following example therefore, using Wolverhampton. Their 5th rider by CMA is Jacob Thorsell. Assuming Heat leaders are riding at team positions 1,3,& 5, Thorsell will line up at 2 or 4.

 

Assuming he crashes out in his first ride, which we will assume is still Heat 1, he isn't excluded from the race, just withdraws injured. His rides could then be covered by RR as follows.

 

1st ride (against opposition 1&2) - Rider 4 by CMA which I believe is Ricky Wells

 

2nd ride (against opposition 2 and 7 - ie the old Heat 8) replaced by rider 6 (Ash Morris)

 

3rd ride (against opposition 3&4 - ie the old Heat 10) - replaced by rider 4 by CMA (Ricky Wells)

 

4th ride (against a SS and a reserve) - replaced by rider 6 or 7

 

Because of this requirement to implement immediate RR once a meeting is underway I would suggest that any rider absence pre meeting has to be covered by a guest, or maybe even by another squad rider if teams ever decide to go down that route

 

Are we to believe the above post is close to the actual rules, if so I thank you for answering quite a few questions.

 

Now what about the moving of riders positions once the averages change???

Edited February 14, 2014 by GRW123

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,706]

A lot of talk about protecting the reserves from heat leaders but I have concerns along similar lines-

 

Protecting a weaker No7 from a strong No6.

 

With the rationale for this change(allegedly) being rider development it would wrong to allow one to replace the other in the 2 non reserve races.

 

To do so would only give further advantage to those teams with the strongest picks.

[Tom Turner 347]

This whole sport is in a very sorry state. I'm barely keeping up now after 10 years of being an avid speedway fan. I dread to think how difficult confusing stupid this sport must be for newcomers.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Colonel

[waiheke1 4,295]

This whole sport is in a very sorry state. I'm barely keeping up now after 10 years of being an avid speedway fan. I dread to think how difficult confusing stupid this sport must be for newcomers.

Do you really think a newcomer cares about the nuances of race formats, averages and team building? I think they couldn't care less, and its only the die hard speedway fsns who do. Newcomers imho just want a good nighrs entertainment in a stafium with decent atmosphere, for a reasonable price.