Congratulations Tai Woffinden, 2016 World Speedway Champion

[pugwash 3,208]

Are the rules not the same though, in that you have to be seen to be racing? In a league match when 2 riders from the same team are dq'd, the 2 remaining riders in the heat have to be seen to be racing?

 

 

Hmm, every time it occurs on Sky, the shouty brothers tell us that the riders have to be seen to be racing...so I have taken that to mean it is a rule.

 

Have noticed that Grey infringed an FMI sporting conduct rule, so hopefully this will put a stop to this kind of thing in the SWC as well?

In the leagues a rider only needs to look over his shoulder and Pearson ejaculates about team riding. Is this not the same scenario?

[Guest GiveusaB]

I think Jepsen Jensen also let Iversen through.......

 

Well done to Greg.....helping team mates out has been going on for years.....I'm not saying that I agree, but it's virtually impossible to stop.....

It's the same when teams are trying to avoid racing in order to get enough points behind in the WTC in order to play the joker !?

 

It spoilt a reasonably good meeting.

Hope Zagar gets a wildcard !

[Guest wolfhound]

I think BWitcher is stretching a point here.

Nice try though but it seems a loser to me as Hancock actually rode in the meeting proper and therefore surely cannot be disqualified from the whole series BUT by withdrawing from the meeting which I presume was without the referee's permission (?), breaks the rules and for this he should receive either a fine or a ban?

Now a fine would be meaningless for Hancock but if he should receive a ban of say 2 GP's (it is the top Championship after all), his chances would be slim of retaining the title and he could even decide to not take part next season which would make many anti-Hancock fans happy but still leave him as the 2016 World Champion!

[BWitcher 12,453]

I think BWitcher is stretching a point here.

Nice try though but it seems a loser to me as Hancock actually rode in the meeting proper and therefore surely cannot be disqualified from the whole series BUT by withdrawing from the meeting which I presume was without the referee's permission (?), breaks the rules and for this he should receive either a fine or a ban?

Now a fine would be meaningless for Hancock but if he should receive a ban of say 2 GP's (it is the top Championship after all), his chances would be slim of retaining the title and he could even decide to not take part next season which would make many anti-Hancock fans happy but still leave him as the 2016 World Champion!

 

Another deciding to invent things.

 

There is no 'stretching'.

 

There is no need for you to invent anything either, the rule has been quoted and is quite clear.

[RPNY 608]

Bwitcher not much I disagree with you on however despite the fact that yes to the letter of the law it might be the rule, I think it'd be very sad if the rider that scored the most points didnt get awarded to world title..

[BWitcher 12,453]

Bwitcher not much I disagree with you on however despite the fact that yes to the letter of the law it might be the rule, I think it'd be very sad if the rider that scored the most points didnt get awarded to world title..

 

I haven't said anything about whether I think it's a good or bad thing.. I agree it's somewhat crazy.

 

All I have said is that, as you confirm, it IS the rule.

[woofers 467]

OK can we look at this again, just the Grand Prix, forget the SWC and the League, we're not discussing those on this thread.

 

Taking it one step at a time-

 

The first part, Greg clearly has entered the Grand Prix World Championships, and has refused to take part in the later part of the final meeting. He is deemed therefore to be suspended for a period of 1 day before and 3 days after the meeting (presumably this rule is to prevent GP riders choosing to take part in another, perhaps more lucrative, event elsewhere). So he could have his Melbourne points deducted?

 

Next, he shall be considered as "ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season" - I read this as he cannot take part in any more meetings. But there aren't any more meetings, so the worst / best that can happen is that he could have 5 points deducted from his final score, reducing his total from 139 to 134, still ahead of Woffindens 130.

 

The second paragraph of the rule doesn't apply in this case, he started the series and has participated.

 

I am no Hancock fan, and think he behaved inappropriately, but he was the highest points scoring over the series.

 

Once again, a speedway rule is open to interpretation, BWitcher thinks it's "crystal clear" and has taken the ineligible phrase to mean as ineligible for the Championship outright, I have read it as meaning a rider is ineligible to take part in any further meetings.

 

So, not so 100% clear.

[JoeW 46]

OK can we look at this again, just the Grand Prix, forget the SWC and the League, we're not discussing those on this thread.

 

Taking it one step at a time-

 

The first part, Greg clearly has entered the Grand Prix World Championships, and has refused to take part in the later part of the final meeting. He is deemed therefore to be suspended for a period of 1 day before and 3 days after the meeting (presumably this rule is to prevent GP riders choosing to take part in another, perhaps more lucrative, event elsewhere). So he could have his Melbourne points deducted?

 

Next, he shall be considered as "ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season" - I read this as he cannot take part in any more meetings. But there aren't any more meetings, so the worst / best that can happen is that he could have 5 points deducted from his final score, reducing his total from 139 to 134, still ahead of Woffindens 130.

 

The second paragraph of the rule doesn't apply in this case, he started the series and has participated.

 

I am no Hancock fan, and think he behaved inappropriately, but he was the highest points scoring over the series.

 

Once again, a speedway rule is open to interpretation, BWitcher thinks it's "crystal clear" and has taken the ineligible phrase to mean as ineligible for the Championship outright, I have read it as meaning a rider is ineligible to take part in any further meetings.

 

So, not so 100% clear.

Meetings are not mentioned. Only the Championship is. If he had walked out of the first meeting he would be ineligible so why should the last be any different? Edited October 24, 2016 by brough

[BWitcher 12,453]

OK can we look at this again, just the Grand Prix, forget the SWC and the League, we're not discussing those on this thread.

 

Taking it one step at a time-

 

The first part, Greg clearly has entered the Grand Prix World Championships, and has refused to take part in the later part of the final meeting. He is deemed therefore to be suspended for a period of 1 day before and 3 days after the meeting (presumably this rule is to prevent GP riders choosing to take part in another, perhaps more lucrative, event elsewhere). So he could have his Melbourne points deducted?

 

Next, he shall be considered as "ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season" - I read this as he cannot take part in any more meetings. But there aren't any more meetings, so the worst / best that can happen is that he could have 5 points deducted from his final score, reducing his total from 139 to 134, still ahead of Woffindens 130.

 

The second paragraph of the rule doesn't apply in this case, he started the series and has participated.

 

I am no Hancock fan, and think he behaved inappropriately, but he was the highest points scoring over the series.

 

Once again, a speedway rule is open to interpretation, BWitcher thinks it's "crystal clear" and has taken the ineligible phrase to mean as ineligible for the Championship outright, I have read it as meaning a rider is ineligible to take part in any further meetings.

 

So, not so 100% clear.

 

Once again, you're inventing things that aren't there.

 

There is no mention of meetings. Simply, he is ineligible for the championship. It is crystal clear.

 

It doesn't matter if someone walked out of the first, fourth, eighth or last meeting. The moment they do so they render themselves ineligible for the championship.

[woofers 467]

Meetings are not mentioned. Only the Championship is. If he had walked out of the first meeting he would be ineligible so why should the last be any different?

Meetings are mentioned in the first sentence of the rule.

 

If he had walked out of the first meeting, he would have been "ineligible for the remainder of the season", he walked out of the last meeting - there was no "remainder of the season".

 

Using your logic, the words "remainder of the season" would not need to be in the rule, nor come to think of it, would the any reference to suspension, as using your interpretation the rule could read basically along the lines, of "miss any meeting, for any reason other than injury, and you're out, points scored to date don't count, your ineligible, full stop" - is that a fair summary of your take on it ?

Once again, you're inventing things that aren't there.

 

There is no mention of meetings. Simply, he is ineligible for the championship. It is crystal clear.

 

It doesn't matter if someone walked out of the first, fourth, eighth or last meeting. The moment they do so they render themselves ineligible for the championship.

 

So where do you think "remainder of the season" fits in ?

[BWitcher 12,453]

 

So where do you think "remainder of the season" fits in ?

 

What it says.

 

It's quite simple. What Championship has Hancock won?

 

Then remind yourself what Championship Hancock is ineligible for.

[The Cheese 2,022]

I didn't see the GP but if Hancock pulled out halfway through, technically is there not a "remainder of the season" in the rest of that meeting?

 

Either way, all this grin nonsense in front of the cameras has always put me off Hancock and some of the things he's done in the past year have just increased that. Great rider, huge respect for the length of time he's competed at the very top level, but for me the sooner he retires the better.

[RPNY 608]

He overtook someone to win his first race. Surely that's the biggest news of this GP!!??

[BWitcher 12,453]

He overtook someone to win his first race. Surely that's the biggest news of this GP!!??

 

More the case of someone moved over and he rode by on the inside.

[Grachan 7,362]

 

Once again, you're inventing things that aren't there.

 

There is no mention of meetings. Simply, he is ineligible for the championship. It is crystal clear.

 

It doesn't matter if someone walked out of the first, fourth, eighth or last meeting. The moment they do so they render themselves ineligible for the championship.

 

It's not crystal clear at all. As always it's open to interpretation - in particular the interpretation of the work "ineligible". So, being a bit of a smarty pant, I decided to come here and debunk Bwitcher's theory.

 

However, if you google "ineligible" you get this:

 

ineligible

ɪnˈɛlɪdʒɪb(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: ineligible

1. legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit.

   "they were ineligible for jury service"

   synonyms: unqualified, ruled out, disqualified, legally disqualified, disentitled;

   incompetent

   "students are ineligible for housing benefit"

   antonyms: eligible

   • dated

     not suitable or desirable, especially as a marriage partner.

     "as a son-in-law he was quite ineligible"

 

So the main reason of ineligible is that he is officially unable to be considered for a position. So he can't be World Champion.

 

So, against my better judgement I have to agree - Tai should be the World Champion. Either that or speedway should make its rules to say what they mean.

 

Congratulations Tai - 3 times World Champ!