Poole vs BV. Premiership. 27/06/19

[foreverblue 6,096]

27 minutes ago, lisa-colette said:

The original point was there were a lot of well known examples and there aren't. So that's good to know . Also with the tapping up example other clubs have done that too, just before KL signed Chris H they didn't ask Poole's permission for example. So other clubs are just as bad sometimes.

There are loads of examples of other teams cheating or using loopholes or  bending the rules to their advantage. None of examples listed can be proved or were reported as cheating at the time. What happened thursday was very unlucky for us, we lost two riders to injury in the same heat and unfortunately the meeting had to be ended due to the curfew, how is that cheating.

Edited June 30, 2019 by foreverblue

[Speedtiger 327]

2 hours ago, lisa-colette said:

The original point was there were a lot of well known examples and there aren't. So that's good to know . Also with the tapping up example other clubs have done that too, just before KL signed Chris H they didn't ask Poole's permission for example. So other clubs are just as bad sometimes.

...so that’s ok then if we’re all cheating together....!!!

And people wonder why Speedway is viewed as a joke sport.

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

1 hour ago, foreverblue said:

There are loads of examples of other teams cheating or using loopholes or  bending the rules to their advantage. None of examples listed can be proved or were reported as cheating at the time. What happened thursday was very unlucky for us, we lost two riders to injury in the same heat and unfortunately the meeting had to be ended due to the curfew, how is that cheating.

The problem is that a curfew being enforced is at least occasionally seemingly dependent on the score at the time.  

If the home side is losing by a couple of points, then the rigid application of a curfew doesn't seem to be so important.  if they are winning by the same margin, it is essential. 

Consequently - and I don't know whether this was the case on Thursday - a home side insisting that a result is called when they are just in front can be seen by sceptical and cynical speedway fans as cheating and, lets face it, in speedway that's entirely possible.  

[Skidder1 7,637]

56 minutes ago, Halifaxtiger said:

The problem is that a curfew being enforced is at least occasionally seemingly dependent on the score at the time.  

If the home side is losing by a couple of points, then the rigid application of a curfew doesn't seem to be so important.  if they are winning by the same margin, it is essential. 

Consequently - and I don't know whether this was the case on Thursday - a home side insisting that a result is called when they are just in front can be seen by sceptical and cynical speedway fans as cheating and, lets face it, in speedway that's entirely possible.  

Thursday's crash was in heat 8 which the ref declared as a 2-4 to BV bringing the meeting to 24-24.

[lisa-colette 6,028]

1 hour ago, Halifaxtiger said:

The problem is that a curfew being enforced is at least occasionally seemingly dependent on the score at the time.  

If the home side is losing by a couple of points, then the rigid application of a curfew doesn't seem to be so important.  if they are winning by the same margin, it is essential. 

Consequently - and I don't know whether this was the case on Thursday - a home side insisting that a result is called when they are just in front can be seen by sceptical and cynical speedway fans as cheating and, lets face it, in speedway that's entirely possible.  

The 'home' side didn't insist though, it was the ref that decided with the agreement of both teams. 

[Speedtiger 327]

39 minutes ago, lisa-colette said:

The 'home' side didn't insist though, it was the ref that decided with the agreement of both teams. 

Yeah yeah...as has been said, if the score had been reversed NM would have insisted they carry on...under the ‘we’ve got a flexible curfew when it suits us’ rule.!!

The big issue here is no one seems to know exactly what went on, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

[foreverblue 6,096]

I think it has been fully explained what happened. The decision to enforce the curfew was taken during the delay so how could Middlo have changed it if we had been losing at the time. The other alternative decision which was mentioned was to call it off at heat 8 and postpone the meeting. 

[foreverblue 6,096]

1 hour ago, Skidder1 said:

Thursday's crash was in heat 8 which the ref declared as a 2-4 to BV bringing the meeting to 24-24.

I know most on here are trying to use the curfew as a stick to beat us with again but i can't see what they don't understand. If it was called off at heat 8 it would of been postponed which wouldn't of suited Belle Vue which is why all parties agreed to the curfew. 

[Trackrat 444]

4 minutes ago, foreverblue said:

I know most on here are trying to use the curfew as a stick to beat us with again but i can't see what they don't understand. If it was called off at heat 8 it would of been postponed which wouldn't of suited Belle Vue which is why all parties agreed to the curfew. 

Why wouldn't it suit Belle Vue, deluded arrogance.

[SUPERACE 440]

1 minute ago, Trackrat said:

Why wouldn't it suit Belle Vue, deluded arrogance.

Because it would of been no result, meaning the meeting being fully re-run.

[foreverblue 6,096]

4 minutes ago, Trackrat said:

Why wouldn't it suit Belle Vue, deluded arrogance.

Because they know they wouldn't have won the re-run against a Poole team back to full strength and already had a point in the bag so whats the point of all the extra costs for no gain. 

[Catalan 717]

2 hours ago, Halifaxtiger said:

The problem is that a curfew being enforced is at least occasionally seemingly dependent on the score at the time.  

If the home side is losing by a couple of points, then the rigid application of a curfew doesn't seem to be so important.  if they are winning by the same margin, it is essential. 

Consequently - and I don't know whether this was the case on Thursday - a home side insisting that a result is called when they are just in front can be seen by sceptical and cynical speedway fans as cheating and, lets face it, in speedway that's entirely possible.  

Thursday's call was we stopped at 10.15 as agreed with Matt and referee.

Both team managers were told whatever the score at that point, and we didn't know what heat it would be at, it would be the result.

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

4 hours ago, foreverblue said:

I think it has been fully explained what happened. The decision to enforce the curfew was taken during the delay so how could Middlo have changed it if we had been losing at the time. The other alternative decision which was mentioned was to call it off at heat 8 and postpone the meeting. 

If it was agreed by all parties during the delay (and I have no reason to doubt your word) that there would be a cut off at 10.15 then that is entirely different and, indeed, very good practice.

The difficulty is we have seen many times in the past that a curfew exists (or doesn't exist) to suit the needs of the home team so its little wonder that there have been allegations of improper behaviour (for want of a better term) here. 

[MMX Events 101]

I can only add that the referee (Paul Carrrington) actually SPECIFIED that there would be no ‘calling it’ if either team thought they had an advantage and wanted do so ... it was set in stone at 10.15pm and nothing else...hence why it was announced. . and with the match drawn at the point of that decision it really could have gone either way.

As for commitment to getting in as many heats as possible, anyone that was there will tell you it was fast and furious and the action all the more hectic coz everyone knew it was a race against time!

i’d say fair play...?

 

[Bald Bloke 3,286]

2 hours ago, MMX Events said:

I can only add that the referee (Paul Carrrington) actually SPECIFIED that there would be no ‘calling it’ if either team thought they had an advantage and wanted do so ... it was set in stone at 10.15pm and nothing else...hence why it was announced. . and with the match drawn at the point of that decision it really could have gone either way.

As for commitment to getting in as many heats as possible, anyone that was there will tell you it was fast and furious and the action all the more hectic coz everyone knew it was a race against time!

i’d say fair play...?

 

If that was the case, agreeing to 10.15pm when the teams were drawing, then that's fair enough.