racers and royals 8,726 Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) 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. I guarantee that the result will be amended today by deducting BWD`s score in heat 12. Edited September 15, 2017 by racers and royals Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waytogo28 2,054 Posted September 15, 2017 I guarantee that the result will be amended today by deducting BWD`s score in heat 12. I do hope that you are right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) I guarantee that the result will be amended today by deducting BWD`s score in heat 12. It certainly should be. I made sure the BV management were aware of the infringement before the meeting was over, during the ridiculous lenghty 'grading break' between Heat 13 and 14. That's, of course, if he hadn't already been spotted down the pits. As already pointed out, it's a matter of fact that BWD was not allowed to replace Musielak. All the best Rob Edited September 15, 2017 by lucifer sam Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theblueboy 960 Posted September 15, 2017 I guarantee that the result will be amended today by deducting BWD`s score in heat 12. The inference from the regulations is that an appeal must be made before the following heat? Assuming I have read that correctly. Or are you saying, that the SCB can arbitrarily amend the result irrespective of whether an appeal was made by BV? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattK 3,447 Posted September 15, 2017 Seems the referee had a nightmare at Swindon tonight with Tobias Musielak's rides. 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. I think the ref was right. The rules state: 15.3. A Starting Offence is considered to have been committed in the following circumstances: - Gate Preparation after the expiry of the 2-minute allowance. When a rider’s motorcycle touches or breaks the starting tapes whilst the green starting light is on or prevents the raising of the start gate. And fails to comply with: - Art 5.4.4 (riding across the infield prior to a heat) * Art 15.2.2 (returning into the pits) Art 15.2.4 (failure to meet the 2-minute time allowance) Art 15.2.8 (not obeying the Start Marshal instructions) A second offence, following an official warning during the meeting for incorrectly preparing the start gate area, disobeying the start marshal and moving during the illumination of the green light before the tapes are released. Therefore, having already been exclused for a "second offence" in heat 3, he effectively has to offend again twice to get excluded. That's my interpretation anyway. I agree with your assessment of heat 12 though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grachan 7,362 Posted September 15, 2017 Surely, if something is down to referee error, then it should stand? It would be the refs responsibility to notice any rule infringements and act on that. I bet old Lucifer Sam could barely contain his excitement at the prospect of Swindon being deducted points though. It's worth it happening just as an act of kindness to him! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted September 15, 2017 Surely, if something is down to referee error, then it should stand? It would be the refs responsibility to notice any rule infringements and act on that. I bet old Lucifer Sam could barely contain his excitement at the prospect of Swindon being deducted points though. It's worth it happening just as an act of kindness to him! Grachan, cheers mate. Seriously though, if a rider has taken an illegal ride, surely it has to be pointed out. All the best Rob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racers and royals 8,726 Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) The inference from the regulations is that an appeal must be made before the following heat? Assuming I have read that correctly. Or are you saying, that the SCB can arbitrarily amend the result irrespective of whether an appeal was made by BV? The SCB must amend the result and can do irrespective of any protest- especially as this is a 2 legged contest. Also scorechart still not up on BSPA website. Edited September 15, 2017 by racers and royals Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GWC 495 Posted September 15, 2017 Should have been thrown out of the meeting then maybe riders will get a strong message not to cheat! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grachan 7,362 Posted September 15, 2017 Grachan, cheers mate. Seriously though, if a rider has taken an illegal ride, surely it has to be pointed out. All the best Rob What should have happened, and I've seen it before, is that the ref should have put the red lights on as the riders came to the tapes and informed them that Musielak had to come in of 15m or Swindon go with just one rider. Looking at how long the meeting took, though, I guess you deserved this minor moment of entertainment! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arnieg 3,643 Posted September 15, 2017 Neil Watson has correctly stated the position. It is a matter of fact. Whether you chose to believe it is up to you. However it remains a fact. Think of it like football where the ball hits the side netting and the ref erroneously awards a goal. NO MATTER HOW CLEAR THE VIDEO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THE GOAL STANDS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racers and royals 8,726 Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) Neil Watson has correctly stated the position. It is a matter of fact. Whether you chose to believe it is up to you. However it remains a fact. Think of it like football where the ball hits the side netting and the ref erroneously awards a goal. NO MATTER HOW CLEAR THE VIDEO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THE GOAL STANDS. How come the Poole illegal 5% for an away guest at Peterborough was amended the following day- no difference here. Edited September 15, 2017 by racers and royals Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) Neil Watson has correctly stated the position. It is a matter of fact. Whether you chose to believe it is up to you. However it remains a fact. Think of it like football where the ball hits the side netting and the ref erroneously awards a goal. NO MATTER HOW CLEAR THE VIDEO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THE GOAL STANDS. Poor analogy. This wasn't a refereeing decision on who was excluded from a race. It was a rider taking an ineligible ride. If a football club fields an ineligible player, then they have points deducted (Oxford United fell foul of this a few years ago). All the best Rob Edited September 15, 2017 by lucifer sam 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fromafar 10,362 Posted September 15, 2017 It's a sad fact that a fan has to point out the rules to the people involved in running the meeting. ! The answer will no doubt be the " interpretation " of the rule as normal. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foreverblue 6,096 Posted September 15, 2017 How come the Poole illegal 5% for an away guest at Peterborough was amended the following day- no difference here. Ty Proctor? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
