Scunthorpe Scorpions Vs Edinburgh Monarchs ( P L) - Sunday, July 17th (6.30pm)

[Al Stewart 398]

 

Which is an ignorance-is-bliss approach, rather than spending two minutes on the BSPA website... as I did, and found a past 4.23 PL average for Mitchell Davey during the course of 2009.

 

I understand that it has also been clarified that Davey would have been eligible as an NL guest as only end-of-season averages are considered, a very sensible approach as it ensures the best chance of a balance of fixtures. It also means no-one has to trawl through hundreds of issues of the green sheets which no-one other than you would want to do. Most are not readily available. Mitchell still is eligible as an NL guest.

 

The one you found was dated 14th October but clearly relates to a different time, given the big difference between the averages there and the end of season ones dated the end of October. Perhaps it came from the last time Glasgow made a team change.

 

It's obvious to me that rule 18.10 should have been re-written in the light of the new no. 7 rules, and that any guest for a no. 7 should be someone eligible to ride as a no. 7 rather than simply someone with an equal or lower average. But we all know the rulebook needs a lot of work.

 

I think it's ironic that so many teams use guest facilities and get substantially stronger. That never seems to happen for Edinburgh and yet we bring in a rider clearly weaker (on current scoring) than the one he is replacing, and it causes the biggest furore in the history of guests!

[Blacksmith 53]

Well Lucifer Sam you clearly don't know as much as you think you do. 😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

All the best Mark

Edited July 22, 2016 by Blacksmith

[lucifer sam 3,953]

I understand that it has also been clarified that Davey would have been eligible as an NL guest as only end-of-season averages are considered, a very sensible approach as it ensures the best chance of a balance of fixtures. It also means no-one has to trawl through hundreds of issues of the green sheets which no-one other than you would want to do. Most are not readily available. Mitchell still is eligible as an NL guest.

 

The one you found was dated 14th October but clearly relates to a different time, given the big difference between the averages there and the end of season ones dated the end of October. Perhaps it came from the last time Glasgow made a team change.

 

It's obvious to me that rule 18.10 should have been re-written in the light of the new no. 7 rules, and that any guest for a no. 7 should be someone eligible to ride as a no. 7 rather than simply someone with an equal or lower average. But we all know the rulebook needs a lot of work.

 

I think it's ironic that so many teams use guest facilities and get substantially stronger. That never seems to happen for Edinburgh and yet we bring in a rider clearly weaker (on current scoring) than the one he is replacing, and it causes the biggest furore in the history of guests!

 

Hi Al, yes 18.10 needs re-wording and also perhaps 19.9.3.

 

There's another thing that the statement doesn't make clear (it also needs an amendment, because Friday to Sunday is not 72 hours!). Was the BSPA member actually correct in telling Edinburgh that the NL league meeting took priority, even if the PL fixture was re-arranged? 19.9.3 suggests otherwise. Al, it may be something that the Edinburgh promotion want to clarify for future clashes, to avoid future furore!

 

 

Well Lucifer Sam you clearly don't know as much as you think you do.

 

All the best Mark

 

No, I've been around long enough to realise that Edinburgh always get their own way.

 

Still time to move on.

 

All the very best with hugs and kisses

Rob

Edited July 22, 2016 by lucifer sam

[Islander15 1,065]

Absolute crap, members of the BSPA committee will not be involved when a decision affects their own team.

 

The statement could not be clearer - BSPA rules applied as per Cyclone's post above, What gets me is why things like this get anywhere near a protest. Surely the BSPA should be explaining before the meeting to BOTH teams why Davey is eligible to ride. And why Mr Godfrey doesn't appear to know the rules on how to make an appeal!!

Jeez, you've just resulted to insults! When the Mildenhall match statement clarified who was involved in the appeal process then why are we not told who made this decision?

Edited July 22, 2016 by Islander15

[TheScotsman 2,483]

Or........................

 

Who was it in the BSPA, of which Rob Godrey has a major role (Vice Chairman?), that ordered Dan Bewley to ride at Buxton instead of at Scunny?

 

 

 

Just asking!!

[DavyH 164]

Jeez, you've just resulted to insults! When the Mildenhall match statement clarified who was involved in the appeal process then why are we not told who made this decision?

Insults?? Where?? You were inferring that a Monarchs official influenced the decision , I explained what really happens i.e. a BSPA member is NOT involved when an issue involves their team.

 

If you want to know who made the decision, ask the BSPA!!

[speed ace 64]

Shame that Mitchell's performance has been overshadowed by the stoozy caused by the appeal.

 

3 rides - 4+1 including 3 times finishing ahead of Josh Bailey who clocks an NL average of 8.4 which is more than decent.

 

And this after missing 3 years because of a very serious leg injury.

 

 

Well done young man.

4+2

It may be absolute crap that Alex Harness was involved in the decision,the problem is none of us actually believe decisions are taken impartially within speedway at all.

None of this is Scunthorpe or Edinburgh's fault really it's the primary school standard of rule book everyone is trying to work to.

Re Rob Godfrey appealing in time,to which interpretation of the rules should he appeal and was he made aware of the type of facility to be used as Davey is clear to ride under one clause and not the other.

It's clear to me from statements at the time an nlg was intended,the rulebook has allowed it to be justified another way.

The biggest shame here is that there's been more debate about the rulebook and appeal than what was an outstanding meeting and to me that's why speedway continues to struggle.

I'm a Scunthorpe fan and obviously disagree with the ruling but I completely accept the match result as it was unaffected by any of the above and that's the way it should be.

I'm neither an Edinburgh or Scunthorp fan, but I agree with the ruling as it appears correct, it's the way they are written that makes them seem contradictory.

Seems to me you're contradicting yourself, as if you deduct the points scored by the rider in question, then it would have changed the result.

 

Great race track and good return for Mitchell on his first pl match after a long time out, now let's all move on.

[AlanF 295]

I think the Scunthorpe interpretation of the rules seems to be correct. However, Edinburgh sought clarification from the BSPA and followed their instructions. Therefore, it doesn't seem fair to punish them for it. I believe that the SCB made the correct decision but for the wrong reasons.

Edited July 22, 2016 by AlanF

[hunch 20]

I don't think I've suggested any points deducted as part of any ruling,people have assumed that may happen had the appeal been upheld so no contradiction from me.

I would have liked some clarity but all that's been given is a justification via one of many possible readings of the rules

In my opinion results should be earned on track not via an appeal,we had the chance to win the meeting in the 15 and didnt

[Islander15 1,065]

I think the Scunthorpe interpretation of the rules seems to be correct. However, Edinburgh sought clarification from the BSPA and followed their instructions. Therefore, it doesn't seem fair to punish them for it. I believe that the SCB made the correct decision but for the wrong reasons.

That's my interpretation of events too.

[Alan_Jones 1,005]

Storm in a teacup. The SCB did the only thing they could and confirmed that the right guest was used as clearly stated in the regs. All the ferretting around in old green sheets was a total waste of time as there was never any hint of a 'no facility' situation.

[cyclone 943]

If we're working to that rule, you don't get as far as 16.1.3 because 16.1.1 says that Belle Vue should always have priority over Bewley as he is their asset.

 

Can you clarify if Bewley is registered as an asset of Elite League Belle Vue or National League Belle Vue Colts as that would relevant re 16.1.1?

 

Even if he is owned by BV Colts, 16.1.2 allows Edinburgh & BV Colts to make their own arrangement re priority when fixtures clash, viz.:

 

16.1.2 If neither Club has “ownership”, then it is determined by the League status of the Club that

does “own” the rider. If that Club is a NL Club then agreement can be made otherwise Art.

16.1 applies.

I assume that when Monarchs considered offering Bewley the no. 7 berth, that both Promotions had agreed that where there was a clash of fixtures, PL fixtures would take priority, unless the PL fixture was a Re- Arranged match (as per Scunthorpe vs Edinburgh).

IMO if Rob Godfrey or whoever was advising him, had read the SCB Regulations in the sequence they are written, it would have been obvious that a Guest Facility for an absent #7 was legitimate.

 

To summarise when there is a fixture clash : 16.1.- PL take priority over NL for Doubling Up riders unless:-

 

The NL fixture is the Original Fixture and PL is a Re-Arranged Fixture (16.1.3)

OR

The NLRC takes priority over any PL fixture on same date (19.9.3)

 

In the the SCB announcement, it states:-

 

"Furthermore, Edinburgh advised Scunthorpe by SMS at 15:14 on Friday 15th July (72 hours prior to the Meeting Start time) of the fact that Mitchell Davey would be the G rider replacing Dan Bewley."

Looks Like Lucifer Sam was either misled, or telling Porkies in Post #69 on Monday morning when he stated :-

"Al, if one were cynical, one might suggest that Edinburgh were well aware of the obvious error in the NL Green Sheets regarding Davey, and announced his presence as late as possible (late yesterday morning), to try to stop anybody spotting it in time. Unfortunately for them, Scunny did, and placed a protest in time."

[John Leslie 3,213]

 

 

Can you clarify if Bewley is registered as an asset of Elite League Belle Vue or National League Belle Vue Colts as that would relevant re 16.1.1?

 

Bewley's registration is owned by Belle Vue Speedway. They are the "owning" club.

 

A club's assets aren't sub-divided into teams.

[Mr Blobby 2,662]

Maybe they should of all had a wee sit down on the track again.

[TheScotsman 2,483]

Maybe they should of all had a wee sit down on the track again.

 

No-one would do such a thing!!