Starting

[OveFundinFan 4,142]

I have already stated my position that I would stick to tape touching alone as the excludable offence.

 

But I was just wondering what people think has been the result of the 'warning system' as used in the GPs.

Has it produced any discernable improvement ?

 

My view is that it has made matters worse.

I have no stats available but my feeling is that there have been MORE starts called back since it has been introduced not less.

With all the resulttant delays being greater.

 

If this is true I ponder upon the reasons ...

 

It 'feels' as this is more often in the early heats of a GP not later (I have no proof).

Which makes one wonder if the warning gives cetain riders a 'psycological push' towards taking that gamble early on.

When they havefour more starts to come. The odds look good on taking the risk.

 

This has made several GPs very stop-start at the beginning and ruined the atmosphere leaving everyone cold and frustrated.

 

In addition, as warnings HAVE to be given to riders now by the refs they have a onus to stop every race wher it happens to issue the penalty.

EVEN when the offender messed up his own start and the ref could have 'played the advantage' of letting that race run.

And therby we have to suffer the extra delays.

 

Whatever, the whole thing of unsatisfactory starts being called back all the bloody time its getting right on my t!ts.

Why does it seem to be in the early heats??

1) Tracks are not race tracks in early heats, more follow the leader, meaning rider needs to get into first corner in front to stand a chance of winning.

2) We all virtually agree this years series of GPs have been the toughest in recent years. The riders know that, so they need to get one over their competitor very early in the race ie the start

[Grand Central 2,654]

Why does it seem to be in the early heats??

1) Tracks are not race tracks in early heats, more follow the leader, meaning rider needs to get into first corner in front to stand a chance of winning.

2) We all virtually agree this years series of GPs have been the toughest in recent years. The riders know that, so they need to get one over their competitor very early in the race ie the start

 

Both good reasons for it.

 

The 'warning system' seems to have been ineffective in curtailing it.

Possibly having the reverse effect, it gives everyone a 'life' that they can afford to lose.

And the impact is to spoil the opening races of SGPs, just when you dont want it to happen.

And the atmosphere on TV and in the stadium is dampened considerably.

 

It has been a poor rule change.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Grand Central

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,706]

Spot on.

The psychology of retrospectively excluding riders will remove any benefits of trying to jump the start (which rider would want to do 4 laps then be excluded?) and mostly eradicate it. And even if it doesn't the supporters aren't subjected to multiple re-starts.

 

Additionally it will add controversy (which is a good thing in case you didn't realise) but the decision to exclude should be supported by technology to avoid subjectivity. Easily done (and I can't believe this isn't standard already) the referee's assistant/time keeper should film every start (and the whole race for that matter) on their smart phone. After the heat the ref reviews the start and excludes anyone who transgressed the rules, regardless of where they finished the race.

Then sooner rather tgan later you will get this -

 

Rider 1 in gate 2 jumps and so gets out in front of Rider 2 off gate 1 (the ref will exclude Rider 1 at the end)

 

A - Rider 1 clamps Rider 2 on the kerb allowing his partner Rider 3 to run round the outside and win.

 

Or B - Rider 2 tries to pass Rider 1 and causes him to fall and is excluded. Is Rider 2 reinstated as Rider 1 should already have been excluded or do both exclusions stand?

 

Post race amendments would far worse than the current frustrations IMO.

[Hamish McRaker 601]

Then sooner rather tgan later you will get this -

Rider 1 in gate 2 jumps and so gets out in front of Rider 2 off gate 1 (the ref will exclude Rider 1 at the end)

A - Rider 1 clamps Rider 2 on the kerb allowing his partner Rider 3 to run round the outside and win.

Or B - Rider 2 tries to pass Rider 1 and causes him to fall and is excluded. Is Rider 2 reinstated as Rider 1 should already have been excluded or do both exclusions stand?

Post race amendments would far worse than the current frustrations IMO.

Scenario A. Referee awards race 1-5 to the disadvantaged team afterwards.

 

Scenario B. Rider 2 re-instated

Then sooner rather tgan later you will get this -

Rider 1 in gate 2 jumps and so gets out in front of Rider 2 off gate 1 (the ref will exclude Rider 1 at the end)

A - Rider 1 clamps Rider 2 on the kerb allowing his partner Rider 3 to run round the outside and win.

Or B - Rider 2 tries to pass Rider 1 and causes him to fall and is excluded. Is Rider 2 reinstated as Rider 1 should already have been excluded or do both exclusions stand?

 

If a post race amendment is made, stick the 2 minutes on soon after and shift the focus onto the next race!!

Post race amendments would far worse than the current frustrations IMO.

[OveFundinFan 4,142]

and do you think fans will be happy not knowing who has won a race/team points until the ref makes a decision. And judging by comments on BSF most refs dont make the correct decisions now never mind when all these scenarios have to be judged.

 

Nonsense, complete nonsense.

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,706]

Scenario A. Referee awards race 1-5 to the disadvantaged team afterwards.

 

Scenario B. Rider 2 re-instated

Which equals a total farce IMO

and do you think fans will be happy not knowing who has won a race/team points until the ref makes a decision. And judging by comments on BSF most refs dont make the correct decisions now never mind when all these scenarios have to be judged.

 

Nonsense, complete nonsense.

Absolutely and all taking at least as much time as and causing delay as the the re-start scenarios.

[OveFundinFan 4,142]

During the GP 11 meetings so far I have been noting WARNINGS given to riders for start infringements - all but Krsko,Warsaw (didnt keep a record), and Teterow (cant find sheet)

 

Krsko

Warsaw

Daugavpils 2 (ht 6, 12)

Prague 4 (ht 3, 13, 20, Final)

Horsens 2 (ht 2, 15)

Cardiff 5 (ht 1, 6, 8, 15, Final)

Malila 2 (ht 2, 10)

Gorzow 0

Teterow

Stockholm 6 (ht 2, 3, 7, 7, 12, 12)

Torun 2 (ht 4, Final)

 

Most common offender - Kildemand, Pawlicki, NKI, and Doyle

No one seems to have faulted again in a meeting.

Doesnt include those who broke the tapes - but the race has to be stopped anyway.

 

What those figures dont show (for obvious reasons) are the number of times races are restarted because of first bend incidents.

[balderdash&piffle 720]

Must have said it on here a 100 times

If the rider does not move , and does not touch the tapes, THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT.

A rider that gets out of the tapes fast, is just that, he is a very good starter.

Referees should stop interpreting this rule, it does not need interpretation,

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,706]

Must have said it on here a 100 times

If the rider does not move , and does not touch the tapes, THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT.

A rider that gets out of the tapes fast, is just that, he is a very good starter.

Referees should stop interpreting this rule, it does not need interpretation,

Dropping the clutch before the magnet release is an infringement even where the rider does not touch the tapes.

Gaining the split second ahead of human reaction times by anticipation is an unfair advantage gained

[The White Knight 9,039]

Must have said it on here a 100 times

If the rider does not move , and does not touch the tapes, THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT.

A rider that gets out of the tapes fast, is just that, he is a very good starter.

Referees should stop interpreting this rule, it does not need interpretation,

I have lost count of the number of great Starts I have seen, only to be pulled back by the Referee.

 

Surely, anticipation is a skill in itself.

 

Plus - if the Rider gets it wrong, he touches the Tapes and is either replaced or goes off 15 metres.

 

Awaits Flak.

[balderdash&piffle 720]

Dropping the clutch before the magnet release is an infringement even where the rider does not touch the tapes.

Gaining the split second ahead of human reaction times by anticipation is an unfair advantage gained

No mention of magnets in the rules, rider should not move at the tapes, simple, if he drops the clutch too soon he will of either moved or go through the tapes. However if he anticipates the magnet and releases the clutch, and neither moves until then or touches the tapes, he cannot have been deemed to have an unfair advantage. PERFECT TIMING should not be penalised.

I have lost count of the number of great Starts I have seen, only to be pulled back by the Referee.

 

Surely, anticipation is a skill in itself.

 

Plus - if the Rider gets it wrong, he touches the Tapes and is either replaced or goes off 15 metres.

 

Awaits Flak.

You are so spot on

[enotian 562]

Then sooner rather tgan later you will get this -

 

Rider 1 in gate 2 jumps and so gets out in front of Rider 2 off gate 1 (the ref will exclude Rider 1 at the end)

 

A - Rider 1 clamps Rider 2 on the kerb allowing his partner Rider 3 to run round the outside and win.

 

Or B - Rider 2 tries to pass Rider 1 and causes him to fall and is excluded. Is Rider 2 reinstated as Rider 1 should already have been excluded or do both exclusions stand?

 

Post race amendments would far worse than the current frustrations IMO.

The point being that once the riders realise that they'll be penalised anytime they jump the start they'll stop doing it so there'll be limited instances of a to be excluded rider interfering with the outcome of the heat (check out 100m sprinting since they brought in automatic disqualification, greatly reduced the number of false starts). Also in most instances of a rider jumping the start they're off and away anyway, that's why they jump the start. Also, so what if they do! More controversy more entertaining. I sometimes wonder if people would rather speedway meetings be run on paper so the right result is always achieved.

Ultimately something needs to be done to stop the number of false starts but we don't want to see numerous 3 rider races so lets just let the race continue and exclude the jumper at the end. Speedways equivalent of the offside goal. The scoring teams supporters and players celebrate the goal only to have it ruled out at which point the opponents fans celebrate. What's not to like.

and do you think fans will be happy not knowing who has won a race/team points until the ref makes a decision. And judging by comments on BSF most refs dont make the correct decisions now never mind when all these scenarios have to be judged.

 

Nonsense, complete nonsense.

 

Same as a close finish. Just adds to the tension. Most fans will have spotted the jump start and will eagerly await the official result hoping that the jump start has/hasn't been spotted. Heaven forbid someone having to change the result in their program making it all messy.........

Refs wouldn't make mistakes in this respect if they utilised the technology at their disposal. Heat ends, quick review of the smart phone footage, any jumpers excluded.

The prize of avoiding numerous boring time consuming false starts has to be worth it. Unless you guys have an interest in selling clutch plates.

[tyretrax 2,253]

If a rider falls asleep and misses the start the race doesn't get stopped but I'll bet he wasn't satisfied.

[hrhbig 69]

Formula one cars are fitted with a transponder that detects any movement, with the allowance for "human" reaction being decided before hand, anything outside these parameters is a jump start. With wi-fi and such surely it would be easy for a referee to have this facility on say a laptop or such. Maybe a bit too modern for this sport.

[ray c 2,299]

It must be the most difficult decision for the referee it really is the biggest grey area in speedway every referee interpret it different

Edited October 17, 2017 by ray c