Panthers Lodge Protest

[NeilWatson 1,988]

Think this is the relevant rule:

 

 

 

3.9 Procedure and Time Limits for Protests to the BSPA MC, limited to Team Notifications Art. 16.4.4.

a) A Protest must be in writing, relate to a single issue only, be accompanied by the correct

fee and signed by the person directly affected.

 

b] A Protest against the legality of a Team Line-Up within the following timescale:

i) For Team Line-Ups notified / changed at any time up to 28 hours before the Meeting

Start Time, a Protest must be lodged at least 24 hours prior to the Meeting start Time.

 

ii) For Team Line-Ups notified less than 28 hours before the Meeting Start Time, a Protest

must be lodged within 4 hours of the notification being made, and in all cases, no later

than 2 hours prior to the Meeting start Time

And:

 

 

3.8.1

No Protest can be lodged against a Statement of Fact; these are specifically:

a) A Referees ruling on a heat result (Art 15.10)

b] A Referees ruling on a Technical matter (Article 10).

c) A BSPA ruling on a riders (re) Grading/Assessed MA (Art 16.2.2)

d) A BSPA / BSPA MC Members ruling on a Team Line-Up, prior to the start of a Meeting

e) A Referees ruling on a Team Line-Up, prior to the start of a Meeting, if not ruled at Art 3.8.1 (d)

 

So the protest must have been made before the meeting.

 

It must therefore have been ruled on by MC/referee

 

Once ruled on it was a non-appealable 'statement of fact'

 

Looks like Panthers will struggle with this one to me.

 

BTW what is the basis of the protest re Shanes eligibility?

Also:

 

15. RACING RULES.

 

15.10 The result of a Meeting can only be amended if: a) the Referee has made an error in the recording of a heat or the Meeting Results or b.) that an absent rider, having been given a Facility is found to have ridden elsewhere in contravention to the Facility so given.

Edited June 24, 2017 by NeilWatson

[parkendlass 102]

Vatcher has made his decision over the Panthers protest.

 

He has deducted Redcar 3 points and awarded Glasgow a 4 point away win. Ah well, that's Vatcher for you !!!

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,706]

new cross never ran in 1955!!!

damn - knew I shouldve just put 'insert year' 👍

[Islander15 1,065]

I'd argue that Shane's wasn't eligible. JPB isn't withholding his services so no guest is allowed (if he was he'd get a ban and not be riding for Birmingham). Shanes is not a NL guest as he's riding in the Premiership.

 

But as pointed out, appeal have to be made before the meeting.

JPB was classed as withholding his services as he got a 14 day ban which covered his Birmingham meetings too. Edited June 24, 2017 by Islander15

[Lukas 911]

Both the home meetings we have lost have been because of that damn Shane's as a guest!😬

...though that might change tomorrow.

[New era Panthers 2,055]

Both the home meetings we have lost have been because of that damn Shane's as a guest!

...though that might change tomorrow.

When Simon Stead was interviewed on the roving mic and was asked about the situation with JPB he didn't wish to comment on it , I wonder why ?

[Noodles 1,337]

When Simon Stead was interviewed on the roving mic and was asked about the situation with JPB he didn't wish to comment on it , I wonder why ?

I thought that was odd at the time, now I presume it's because he knew a protest had been lodged.

 

The second point I believe is around the length of ban JPB was served/serving. Sheffield think it was 28 days, but Peterborough are querying this as Auty only got 14 days for the exact same crime.

[Panthers89 1,922]

Nothing gained nothing lost, worth a protest/complaint/moan/chance your arm

Edited June 25, 2017 by Panthers89

[Noodles 1,337]

Nothing gained nothing lost, worth a protest/complaint/moan/chance your arm

Exactly, it's made up on the spot anyway so you could get lucky depending on who looks at it/day of the week/weather outside

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,706]

I thought that was odd at the time, now I presume it's because he knew a protest had been lodged.

 

The second point I believe is around the length of ban JPB was served/serving. Sheffield think it was 28 days, but Peterborough are querying this as Auty only got 14 days for the exact same crime.

This is where speedway shoots itself in the foot.

 

The length of the ban should just be a matter of fact. Sheffield should have in writing a formal notification from the ruling committee.

 

There should be nothing to query.

 

Also the regs are in this case recently (2/3 years ago) reworked to try to avoid post match changes. It is very clear the intention is for these decisions to be pre match and final.

 

Neil has highlighted the one part of the regs where there could be a challenge in this case. 👍

 

From that I would say this case depends on whether the decision to grant the facility was made with the full knowledge of JPBs riding intentions and whether these changed breaking the terms on which the facility was granted.

 

Of course Sheffield could argue even if his intentions changed which would break the terms of the facility this would be beyond their control. It would be the same ruling committee allowing him to ride outside the original terms and not Sheffield.

[Max the rebel 14]

Why are they crying you ride against who is in front of u.

If the meeting was rerun Sheffield would still win as they are the better team

People could say they cheated by building there team above the points limit

[allthegearbutnaeidea 1,734]

Why are they crying you ride against who is in front of u.

If the meeting was rerun Sheffield would still win as they are the better team

People could say they cheated by building there team above the points limit

How old are you? You are acting like a 12 year old 😂

[PE7Panther 331]

Used the word potentially as it depends when the rider is announced. The protest has to be made in specific timescales. It could be hours before the meeting but only if a change is made on the day.

No intention at a snidey remark about Neil (note the smiley). Infact I fully respect his knowledge as he is invariably correct with his information particularly about the regulations. So quite the opposite.

 

We all know and understand that protests have to be made within prescribed timescales. The fact remains that it was an incorrect use of the word "potentially" in that sentence.

 

And it was a snidey pop. You're regularly on Panthers' threads doing it; the inclusion of smileys are your convenient get-out.

Edited June 25, 2017 by PE7Panther

[Noodles 1,337]

Why are they crying you ride against who is in front of u.

If the meeting was rerun Sheffield would still win as they are the better team

People could say they cheated by building there team above the points limit

I'm sure you'll be able to back up that claim by quoting the rule we (& Ipswich) have broken?

[Paulco 7,075]

When the new BSPA chairman took over , he promised to make the rule book less ambiguous and make the sport simple again . 18 months later here we are arguing over yet another grey area that nobody noticed at the time . Presumably Sheffield would have had to have declared their team a few days in advance , so does nobody at the sport's headquarters look at these things when they come in ?