Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Hunters

Eastbourne v Glasgow Semi Final

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Richard Weston said:

Cook should have been stationary before reaching the marshal. He should have stopped long before that point.

We get it, Cook shouldn't have left the starting gate but the marshall shouldn't try to stop a bike with no brakes by jumping in front of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lucifer sam said:

In what way is the marshall incorrecly?

By trying to stop a bike with no brakes with his body. :nono:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that at first the ref wanted to take Cook out of the meeting, but the Eastbourne promotion asked for him to be reinstated so as to not weaken the meeting. I believe Cook will be dealt with in an alternative way.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

I understand that at first the ref wanted to take Cook out of the meeting, but the Eastbourne promotion asked for him to be reinstated so as to not weaken the meeting. I believe Cook will be dealt with in an alternative way.

such as making him take part in next season's SON!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Solidmango said:

I'll give you a wee hand, this is straight from the SCB rule book, the only section mentioning the red flag. So, did the referee put the red lights on?!

 

14.14 The TRACK CURATOR (who must be formally approved by the SCB) ensures the track and all connected aspects receives timely and suitable preparation prior to and during a Meeting. a) They must be fully aware and responsible to ensure compliance of these Regulations, specifically Art.9.2.1 (provision of a fixed APD’s, spare APD Panels and Inflatable Pumps), Art.9.2.2 (advertising on fences), Art. 9.2.3 (Neutral Zone), Art.9.2.4 (Infield requirements), Art.9.2.5 and 9.2.5.1 (Inner and Outer Edge markings) and Art.9.5 (minimum equipment requirements and shale). b) confirm to the Referee by means of the Meeting Certificate of the type and quantity of Equipment available and that it is in working order. c) Assisted by Track Marshals ensure that the track is clear of all objects as soon as the 2-minute warning is sounded and that the Red Flags are shown immediately the Referee shows the Red Stop lights.

independent neutral evidence is that RED LIGHTS were put on a good 20 seconds before Cook and Marshall had coming together at least full home straight travelled with red lights on. 

obviously we will all have to wait to see any video evidence about  that; but been confirmed to me by a Poole fan and a Kent fan present  via PMessage on Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

I understand that at first the ref wanted to take Cook out of the meeting, but the Eastbourne promotion asked for him to be reinstated so as to not weaken the meeting. I believe Cook will be dealt with in an alternative way.

Utter nonsense 

Share this post


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

independent neutral evidence is that RED LIGHTS were put on a good 20 seconds before Cook and Marshall had coming together at least full home straight travelled with red lights on. 

obviously we will all have to wait to see any video evidence about  that; but been confirmed to me by a Poole fan and a Kent fan present  via PMessage on Facebook.

Oh.  Even longer ban coming for Mr Cook, if that's the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

I understand that at first the ref wanted to take Cook out of the meeting, but the Eastbourne promotion asked for him to be reinstated so as to not weaken the meeting. I believe Cook will be dealt with in an alternative way.

surely if ref says he is OUT he is out and why would Eastbourne or any other club want opposition No 1 reinstated?

I would argue that if cook had gone out in Heat 1 and won it like he did Heat 5 the whole match mood would have been different and result possibly different too. His actions deeply affected his own Team and certainly as much an impact of result as anything Eastbourne did on or off the track.

No word from Cook; Glasgow or any Cook backers as to why he did not go out for Heat 1? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HGould said:

independent neutral evidence is that RED LIGHTS were put on a good 20 seconds before Cook and Marshall had coming together at least full home straight travelled with red lights on. 

obviously we will all have to wait to see any video evidence about  that; but been confirmed to me by a Poole fan and a Kent fan present  via PMessage on Facebook.

It is also entirely reasonable to believe that Cook (and other riders still on track) were heading back to the pits (why else be riding so slowly in that direction) - so why the need for an over zealous marshall to go to such lengths of stupidity? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, timetoturnleftagain said:

Longer 2 minute version, sorry no sound and taken from tele by phone.

 

 

 

Well Well Well. Dickie Juul in the middle of it. Who would have believed that. :P

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SharpenRake said:

The simplest thing would be for the SCB to declare the result null and void and instruct that it be re-run at a neutral track. Belle Vue would be a sensible alternative venue as it is roughly 200+miles from both tracks. 

Great idea but in all of this what has Eastbourne done so wrong that have their deserved victory taking off them and are required to take part in a replay

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, timetoturnleftagain said:

Longer 2 minute version, sorry no sound and taken from tele by phone.

 

 

 

Looking at this and the initial clip posted by Martin Dugard, I would say the flag marshal deliberately walked into Craig Cook's path - it certainly wasn't the case that Cook rode him down.

When I was trained as a flag marshal, I was told that if I was on track at the same time as riders I must - absolutely must - stand still. Eastbourne should be held accountable for what the marshal did. 

Cook then shoulder charges - not head butts - him. If truth were told, I think he at that point at least acted with some restraint. I think every rider in the same position would have shown some reaction and many a great deal worse. 

It then appears to me that the situation is exacerbated by someone confronting Cook, at which point he lashes out and it all kicks off. Whoever that was should be punished.

If Cook deserves a ban - and I think he does - so does Eddie Kennett. He piles in as soon as it starts and he is equally as guilty, which is probably why Martin Dugard edited his video so carefully.  Looks like Claus Vissing deserves disciplining as well.

Edited by Halifaxtiger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, acef said:

So to summarise:

Cook does not deliberately ride into start marshal. Indeed the start marshal walks into him.

Cook does not head butt the start marshal, he shoulder charges him. Likely being more than a little pissed with the fella who just walked right in front of him. Rightly so.
 

Cook does very little wrong. The start most certainly does. 
 

If anyone takes a ban here, it’s that sausage with the red flag.

OLE` It's Tommy the Toreador.:)

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