Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
lisa-colette

Belle Vue vs Kings Lynn Playoff Semi 1st Leg 24/09/18

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Col said:

Two 5-1's conceeded by Proctor & Jorgensen so far tonight. One to Garcia & one to Berge. It won't cost them but just making my point.

We know.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mentioned in the Speedway Star this week that the referee from this meeting, Willie Dishington, has been banned for the rest of the season for his mistake in not allowing Steve Worrall in heat 15.

Is there really any need to punish him like that? Mistakes happen, not the first time and it won't be the last. Also very poor that he was only told of the decision by email. It's always being said that there is a shortage of referees, seeing one get treated like this is hardly going to encourage people to want to do the job..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic speedway overreaction, ban him for a meeting or 2 fair enough (which is probably all he'll miss anyway) but why this whole season ban thing? How many speedway representatives get banned for the rest of the season when there's actually only 2/3 meetings left? Looks daft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really much of a penalty considering what is left of the season. A referee not knowing the rules is in my view something that should be dealt with as a serious issue. It is their job to know the rule book inside out. In this instance, we do not know if his mistake would have made any difference to the final score of that meeting. Fortunately, what we do know is that it wouldn't have affected the overall result.

I would assume that he was able to put forward his case as part of the investigation and I don't see a problem in him being informed of the result in writing by way of an email.

Edited by Aces51
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by SS report no evidence of Dishington putting forward is evidence is shown. Who has put forward his case.

As the Referee's Association  appear to be missing. In this one time for a Trade Union to get involved. Football wise Prospect appear to represent Referees in both England and Scotland.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aces51 said:

Not really much of a penalty considering what is left of the season. A referee not knowing the rules is in my view something that should be dealt with as a serious issue. It is their job to know the rule book inside out. In this instance, we do not know if his mistake would have made any difference to the final score of that meeting. Fortunately, what we do know is that it wouldn't have affected the overall result.

I would assume that he was able to put forward his case as part of the investigation and I don't see a problem in him being informed of the result in writing by way of an email.

Surely the team manager must accept blame for not knowing the rules and if he does then he should forcibly insist the referee checks before proceeding. I`m sure  that in this instance Worrall was eligible for heat 15 as the rule book was as printed as well as eligible under the supp reg changes to the rule. i don`t remember the ref who cocked up when Rossister failed to give a rider(Musielak) his 3 minimum rides in a home match being suspended for allowing it.

Edit Rossister`s/referee`s  cock-up ironically also involved Belle Vue September 2017

Edited by racers and royals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not ironic at all unfortunately. 

If refs were suspended for wrongly calling against Belle Vue, we’d run out of refs pretty quick. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the ref from mondays get a ban for the wrong call in excluding parm toff lol 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 12:18 PM, Aces51 said:

Not really much of a penalty considering what is left of the season. A referee not knowing the rules is in my view something that should be dealt with as a serious issue. It is their job to know the rule book inside out. In this instance, we do not know if his mistake would have made any difference to the final score of that meeting. Fortunately, what we do know is that it wouldn't have affected the overall result.

I would assume that he was able to put forward his case as part of the investigation and I don't see a problem in him being informed of the result in writing by way of an email.

That's not fair on the referee's. The people writing the rules don't even understand them and interpret them differently. What chance to the referee's have to be 100% accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Daniel Smith said:

That's not fair on the referee's. The people writing the rules don't even understand them and interpret them differently. What chance to the referee's have to be 100% accurate. 

That particular rule isn't difficult to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aces51 said:

That particular rule isn't difficult to understand.

It may not be, but the pressures of the situation can throw people off. There's no sport in the world where the referee's get everything 100% accurate.

There's nobody who can interpret every rule 100% accurate. Interpretation is the rule.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

It may not be, but the pressures of the situation can throw people off. There's no sport in the world where the referee's get everything 100% accurate.

There's nobody who can interpret every rule 100% accurate. Interpretation is the rule.

 

Utter rubbish !!!!! you tell me how this supp reg can be interpreted anyway other than written.

15.14.3 Nominations must be a “Qualified Rider”, as follows – a) Any Rider in the 1 – 5 by MA, (subject to them not already having taken 7 rides). In addition a reserve (6th and 7th by MA) who is in the top 3 points scorers (inc bonus points) from their programmed rides, (subject to them not already having taken 7 rides) (NB. No facility is available allowing another rider to be elevated to the qualified list if any of qualified riders are unavailable due to being withdrawn or has no equipment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, racers and royals said:

Utter rubbish !!!!! you tell me how this supp reg can be interpreted anyway other than written.

15.14.3 Nominations must be a “Qualified Rider”, as follows – a) Any Rider in the 1 – 5 by MA, (subject to them not already having taken 7 rides). In addition a reserve (6th and 7th by MA) who is in the top 3 points scorers (inc bonus points) from their programmed rides, (subject to them not already having taken 7 rides) (NB. No facility is available allowing another rider to be elevated to the qualified list if any of qualified riders are unavailable due to being withdrawn or has no equipment)

That version looks very different to the actual updated rule book. Have you amended the above personally??

15.14.3 Nominations must be a ‘qualified’ Rider, determined as either:  

a) A Rider in the top 3 of that Meeting’s Team by current MA (NB. A Team missing one of the top 3 and using the RR facility) may use the 4th highest Rider by MA.    

or  

b) A Top 5 points scorer (counting the 4 x programmed rides only, including bonus points). Excluding any rider who has already taken 7 rides or if one of those top 5 point scorers has already taken 7 rides then the 6th highest points scorer becomes a ‘qualified’ rider.  

(NB: No facility is available allowing another rider to be elevated to the qualified list if any of those top 5 points scorers are unavailable due to be withdrawn or has no equipment).  

_____________

There is interpretation to be had as R/R rides don't count as 'programmed rides'.

The referee could have mistaken all of Bellago's rides as programmed which would have pushed Worrall to 6th in the meeting score due to his 2+1 was as an R/R. This giving Worrall the same score as Bellago. The fact that Worrall retired from a heat render his 4 points worse than Bellago's 4 points better because he completed his rides.

The referee may have interpreted the rules correctly but marked the programmed rides incorrectly. An easy mistake to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Daniel Smith said:

That version looks very different to the actual updated rule book. Have you amended the above personally??

15.14.3 Nominations must be a ‘qualified’ Rider, determined as either:  

a) A Rider in the top 3 of that Meeting’s Team by current MA (NB. A Team missing one of the top 3 and using the RR facility) may use the 4th highest Rider by MA.    

or  

b) A Top 5 points scorer (counting the 4 x programmed rides only, including bonus points). Excluding any rider who has already taken 7 rides or if one of those top 5 point scorers has already taken 7 rides then the 6th highest points scorer becomes a ‘qualified’ rider.  

(NB: No facility is available allowing another rider to be elevated to the qualified list if any of those top 5 points scorers are unavailable due to be withdrawn or has no equipment).  

_____________

There is interpretation to be had as R/R rides don't count as 'programmed rides'.

The referee could have mistaken all of Bellago's rides as programmed which would have pushed Worrall to 6th in the meeting score due to his 2+1 was as an R/R. This giving Worrall the same score as Bellago. The fact that Worrall retired from a heat render his 4 points worse than Bellago's 4 points better because he completed his rides.

The referee may have interpreted the rules correctly but marked the programmed rides incorrectly. An easy mistake to make.

That isn`t the updated rule book you are looking at- you are looking at the 2018 rule book without the amendments- i am quoting SR 1804 dated 22nd March 2018. which along with all the other amendments make up the current rule book- why the SCB cannot amend the original PDF pages so that the rule book can be checked in one place is beyond me !!!!

What are you looking at ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

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