Refereeing Cock-up At Swindon V Belle Vue Ko Cup

[WalterPlinge 657]

Seems the referee had a nightmare at Swindon tonight with Tobias Musielak's rides.

 

Heat 3 - Musielak moves at the start and is given a warning. In the re-run musielak moves again and is correctly disqualified. He is replaced by Liam Carr - so a frustrated ride for Musielak which of course doesn't count towards the 3 ride minimum.

 

Heat 5 - Musielak completes his first ride of the night scoring 2 points.

 

Heat 9 - Musielak moves again at the start. Already having been given a warning in heat 3 he should be disqualified (no replacement permitted in order to take his 3 programmed rides). However referee seems to forget the previous warning and gives him a second warning. Musielak gets to complete his second ride of the night - albeit it with a fell/disqualified.

 

Heat 12 - Musielak misses the 2 minutes and is disqualified. As he has only had 2 rides so far, no replacement is allowed (unless he is withdrawn injured). Referee makes his second mistake by allowing Wilson-Dean to replace him.

 

 

Surely the 2 points scored by Wilson-Dean in heat 12 must now be removed as Musielak only had 2 rides? And maybe the SCB need to re-train the referee after 2 mistakes in 1 meeting?

 

[theblueboy 960]

Why, if you were disqualified in heat 3 for movement, would you be disqualified again in heat 9? Musielak moved in each running of heat 3 and was rightly disqualified.

 

You start again thereafter.

 

Come on Walter, if your going to bash the ref for incompetence, at least get it right.

[WalterPlinge 657]

Why, if you were disqualified in heat 3 for movement, would you be disqualified again in heat 9? Musielak moved in each running of heat 3 and was rightly disqualified.

 

You start again thereafter.

 

Come on Walter, if your going to bash the ref for incompetence, at least get it right.

He should have been disaqualified as he received a warning in heat 3.

 

Once you are on a warning for the meeting, any other infringements result in automatic disqualification. His subsequent infringement in heat 3 correctly resulted in disqualification. The one in heat 9 should have too.

[HenryW 1,178]

He should have been disaqualified as he received a warning in heat 3.

 

Once you are on a warning for the meeting, any other infringements result in automatic disqualification. His subsequent infringement in heat 3 correctly resulted in disqualification. The one in heat 9 should have too.

That is certainly the way the warning system works in the SGP series but I'm not sure if it's the same for domestic meetings.

 

The rules clearly state that a second offence after a warning will result in disqualification, but it doesn't mention subsequent offences. As it only refers to a second offence after a warning one could assume that a new warning would be required before a disqualification could occur again.

 

As for heat 12. Is it possible he was withdrawn from the meeting injured after his previous fall?

[lucifer sam 3,953]

As for heat 12. Is it possible he was withdrawn from the meeting injured after his previous fall?

 

How can a rider who has been officially signed out of the meeting be excluded under the two minute allowance?

 

He must have still been in the meeting, and therefore the reserve replacement in Heat 12 was illegal.

 

All the best

Rob

Edited September 15, 2017 by lucifer sam

[arnieg 3,635]

The two minute clock was visible on the start line and the exclusion light for TM went on the instant it reached zero. There is no doubt whatsoever that he was excluded under two mins and not withdrawn from the meeting.

 

I suspect that this mistake happened because like most of us at this meeting Chris Gay had rather lost the will to live by then.

[bigcatdiary 3,165]

Any reason why he couldn't have gone off a 15 metre handicap in heat 12.

[Midland Red 2,383]

Did the referee see a medical certificate for Craig Cook?

[bigcatdiary 3,165]

Who was the meeting referee

[NeilWatson 1,988]

'Matters of fact' as defined in the Speedway Regulations cannot be appealed, heat results are defined as such.

[TheRealFiend 1,109]

There are so many rules even referee's and team manager's dont know some of them.

[waytogo28 2,054]

'Matters of fact' as defined in the Speedway Regulations cannot be appealed, heat results are defined as such.

 

So this is how the BSPA run the sport? Are "matters of fact" so very different to "as a matter of fact"? Because as a matter of fact the reserve replacement in heat 12 was illegal. How does the heat result then become a "matter of fact"? Is that why it stands?

And DID Craig Cook present a medical certificate to the referee?

[ouch 1,191]

When we didn't print Peter Ravn's name in the programme whilst using R/R it's a matter of fact that we got chucked out of the tie we'd just won.

[racers and royals 8,720]

When we didn't print Peter Ravn's name in the programme whilst using R/R it's a matter of fact that we got chucked out of the tie we'd just won.

Nice wasn`t it - that`s what team managers get paid for and that was only done because Belle Vue pulled a fast one over the facility.

Edited September 15, 2017 by racers and royals

[ouch 1,191]

No we didn't.

 

It's all about if your face fits and ours hasn't for decades.

 

This will be no different, the deficit will remain at 11 whatever our manager does.