Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Sign in to follow this  
WalterPlinge

Refereeing Cock-up At Swindon V Belle Vue Ko Cup

Recommended Posts

Surely in the interests of fair play Swindon should demand that BWDs points in that heat be deducted from the scoreline.

But all we have had is silence. In fact the "mistake" has been known for a while now but the silence has been deafening from the Swindon management. That alone can only be interpreted that along with many of their fans they are hoping to get away with it.

A real shame.

What have the Belle Vue management said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. If a bike is found to be illegal after a meeting, a rider's points would be removed retrospectively. And that's just one example.

A clear rule violation took place, no interpretation necessary. Who's fault it was that the violation took place is secondary.

Exactly. It's as I pointed out when Poole beat us by breaking the rules. Loads of people said the race was run the result recorded with no protest before the following race(s), so the result cannot be amended. This was the exact scenario when Kennett had the illegal silencer. The rule breaking was reported after the whole meeting was completed but the points were removed and the result amended.

 

The ONLY thing stopping this being put right is the same as last time and that's the fact that Belle Vue are involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been many instances over the years where results have later been amended because of some illegality during the meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know the man thanks.

 

I came on to this thread and lo and behold he has gone on and on fishing to get a bite.

 

Please ask yourself what his post brings??? Going on about everyone is behind Poole Speedway now.

 

The man is a troll who posts to get reactions..............sad really

 

Have a look at the nature of the posts something that some Poole fans cant do....not sure if its a lack of education down that way.

 

He posts to antagonise and troll......look at his posts on this thread.

 

I give opinions...totally different..................you know opinions like the one i gave that Poole would win at Somerset only to be told i know nothing and speak bullsh1t....

 

Im sure if Swindon are found in the wrong they will get punished............just hilarious how Poole fans get their knickers in a twist when their club is far and away the biggest culprits.

 

How quickly they forget the goggles issue , Dakota North, Hans Andersen......strange little world down that way

So leave us to our strange little world and get lost, get back to guarding your bridge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Is that a relatively new rule Neil? (Last 5 years or so). I only ask as it was done a few years back when Redcar appealed a heat result in a meeting against Glasgow and the rede larded result after the appeal was farcical as they updated the Redcar rider in second, not the Glasgow rider in third and gave a point to a rider who DNF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been many instances over the years where results have later been amended because of some illegality during the meeting.

Any when they have changed the result of one heat ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any when they have changed the result of one heat ?

 

Reading v Oxford, when Oxford used an illegal supplementary reserve in Heat 1. Left the stadium thinking Oxford had won 46-44 (and also wondering if the rules regarding supplementary reserves had changed for a second time that season); the following day, the SCB considered the matter and changed the score to 45-45.

 

I didn't blame Mr Sugar for his objection - rather our team manager for being incompetent.

 

The same should happen with Thursday's meeting - in fact, it should have been amended on Friday.

 

All the best

Rob

Edited by lucifer sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reading v Oxford, when Oxford used an illegal supplementary reserve in Heat 1. Left the stadium thinking Oxford had won 46-44 (and also wondering if the rules regarding supplementary reserves had changed for a second time that season); the following day, the SCB considered the matter and changed the score to 45-45.

 

I didn't blame Mr Sugar for his objection - rather our team manager for being incompetent.

 

All the best

Rob

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reading v Oxford, when Oxford used an illegal supplementary reserve in Heat 1. Left the stadium thinking Oxford had won 46-44 (and also wondering if the rules regarding supplementary reserves had changed for a second time that season); the following day, the SCB considered the matter and changed the score to 45-45.

 

I didn't blame Mr Sugar for his objection - rather our team manager for being incompetent.

 

The same should happen with Thursday's meeting - in fact, it should have been amended on Friday.

 

All the best

Rob

depends what the rules were then and what they are now ..by all accounts lemon had to make it known to ref by the next heat something he never did .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depends what the rules were then and what they are now ..by all accounts lemon had to make it known to ref by the next heat something he never did .

So you think Swindon should get an unfair advantage for breaking the rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think Swindon should get an unfair advantage for breaking the rules?

Didn't see you complaining about gogglegate last year when Poole rode against BV #doublestandards #sh!tshoveller :rolleyes:

Edited by Steve0
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think Swindon should get an unfair advantage for breaking the rules?

And Poole have not in the past have they ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that a relatively new rule Neil? (Last 5 years or so). I only ask as it was done a few years back when Redcar appealed a heat result in a meeting against Glasgow and the rede larded result after the appeal was farcical as they updated the Redcar rider in second, not the Glasgow rider in third and gave a point to a rider who DNF

IIRC the rule was introduced precisely to stop appeals after the event, probably at the same time the new process for declaring line-ups with clear timelines for queries was introduced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet Kennett wishes his silencer shenanigans was more recent as nowadays he'd be ok.

 

I'm not a fan of the new rules but if that's the case then we'll have to live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy