Well done the S.C.B.

[Ringitsneck 348]

Wow! 

A volunteer gets fined £100 for an argument with an official and a professional gets fined £65 for punching an official and most of you don't appear to think that's unfair?

No matter the finer details of who said what that is unjust.

 

[The Doctor... 1,478]

2 hours ago, Ringitsneck said:

Wow! 

A volunteer gets fined £100 for an argument with an official and a professional gets fined £65 for punching an official and most of you don't appear to think that's unfair?

No matter the finer details of who said what that is unjust.

 

Why is the fact he's unpaid such an issue - should the ref ask every official that causes an issue how much he is paid before he writes his report ?

The two incidents keep being mentioned when they have no relation whatsoever.  

 

[Ringitsneck 348]

7 hours ago, The Doctor... said:

Why is the fact he's unpaid such an issue - should the ref ask every official that causes an issue how much he is paid before he writes his report ?

The two incidents keep being mentioned when they have no relation whatsoever.  

 

I'll rephrase it then so you get the message.

 An argument and an assault.

which one should attract the heaviest fine?

 

[The Cheese 2,022]

This 'assault' by Cook at the Fours a couple of years ago always gets mentioned on here yet the alleged victim denied it happened..

http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/84674-championship-fours-0608-peterborough/&do=findComment&comment=3031391

 

[lucifer sam 3,953]

19 hours ago, racers and royals said:

How similar to a certain Racers team manager who didn`t quite agree that Mark Lemon had been beat for the vital 3rd place in the pairs semi at Somerset- a decision that sent the "home" team through to the final. The video cameraman said it wasn`t even close and the photo  published in the speedway star showed it to be half a wheel at least !!!! the team manager certainly didn`t ask for permission to speak to Mr Flint and i think the fine was more than £100

Remember that - that was an absolutely appalling decision by Graham Flint.

[Sings4Speedway 3,246]

1 hour ago, The Cheese said:

This 'assault' by Cook at the Fours a couple of years ago always gets mentioned on here yet the alleged victim denied it happened..

http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/84674-championship-fours-0608-peterborough/&do=findComment&comment=3031391

 

Not really the Piper just denies being hit in the face nothing about not being hit full stop.  It is still irrelevent to the original issue though. The fine for Parr was / wasn't justified but the value of it was in the correct region. Cook's fine was appalling and another case of the nonsense that is trotted out to attempt to keep loyal supporters in the dark about actual pay rates. 

[BWitcher 12,453]

1 hour ago, lucifer sam said:

Remember that - that was an absolutely appalling decision by Graham Flint.

Was Flint the referee last night and couldn't even spot an absolute blatant tape touching?

Not an excuse as would make no difference to the result, but if he can't see that he shouldn't be refereeing.

[Pieman72 588]

Get a grip no wonder tracks are closing !!

[Triple.H. 1,981]

5 hours ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Not really the Piper just denies being hit in the face nothing about not being hit full stop.  It is still irrelevent to the original issue though. The fine for Parr was / wasn't justified but the value of it was in the correct region. Cook's fine was appalling and another case of the nonsense that is trotted out to attempt to keep loyal supporters in the dark about actual pay rates. 

Maybe Cooke' s appalling fine was based as a percentage of the appalling pay rate offered by the promoters of the sport for riding in a National Event

[Parsy29 127]

On 10/9/2019 at 5:33 PM, The Doctor... said:

Good to hear your version of things tho does go slightly away from what the original fella said - i thought he said you went in there to get the ref to address it as racing incident and to reassure the rider in order to continue his career ?

 Sounds like you went in there without his permission to show him some unofficial video (where was it from by the way ?  club video guy or someone randomly filming from the crowd/pits) in order to change his mind. You've not "stormed" the box i guess but you certainly didn't have the ref or clerk of the course permission to be there.  Being beckoned in by an extra in the box doesn't give you the right and as TM you probably know that. 

I don't know how long you've been managing the team, but i'm sure older heads in the role would give you sound advice here that chasing a decision like this no matter how poor you think it is, isn't the way to do things. There's standing up for your team and there's this.  This was a rider type reaction imo.  Not a managers one.

It's all very noble to do what you did but the reality is that it was a crazy thing to do - he was never gonna change his mind was he..

I will apologise for this in advance, but your last sentence is frankly daft - if you're gonna abandon speedway, then do that, but to use this as some kind of reason of a supposed sinking ship is stupid.  You caused this..

Also, if you don't wanna pay, just don't pay then - it only stops you from getting licensed again i believe if you don't pay up. 

Cheers

 

 

Thanks for your structured comments. I would just like this all put behind me to be honest. I made a bad judgment to go across and try and speak to the referee. I did knock and wait before being called in. I did not know who it was that called me in to be honest, it could have been the referee for all I knew as I wasn't aware of the seating plan in the box.

Ive been a supporter of Speedway all my life. A rider for the last 4 years and a team manager just this season. What I did was wrong and won't be repeated, however I still believe that a £100 fine for something non violent or even threatening ( I know entering the box was stupid ) for a volunteer who makes nothing from Speedway and for a first offence is very harsh without even asking for my side of the story.

Lets just move on and Ive learnt from my actions lets say.

[OveFundinFan 4,137]

1 hour ago, Parsy29 said:

Thanks for your structured comments. I would just like this all put behind me to be honest. I made a bad judgment to go across and try and speak to the referee. I did knock and wait before being called in. I did not know who it was that called me in to be honest, it could have been the referee for all I knew as I wasn't aware of the seating plan in the box.

Ive been a supporter of Speedway all my life. A rider for the last 4 years and a team manager just this season. What I did was wrong and won't be repeated, however I still believe that a £100 fine for something non violent or even threatening ( I know entering the box was stupid ) for a volunteer who makes nothing from Speedway and for a first offence is very harsh without even asking for my side of the story.

Lets just move on and Ive learnt from my actions lets say.

I think those are 3 key points. Without asking the accused for a statement, written or spoken, before a judgement is made is out of order. If, after reviewing all points available, the decision is “guilty”, then the two former highlighted points should be taken into consideration.

[Byker Biker 468]

I have been at all ends of this situation and can understand all of the views of those involved however my problem is the lack of consistency applying penalties and the arbitrary way they are dished out. For every rule that can be broken the rule book could carry the applicable penalty, if we use the specific example in this thread then in my opinion the box is sacrosanct and entry should carry the maximum £300 fine so if the rule was written something like "Entering the SCB Official's refereeing position is forbidden and carries the maximum penalty of £300 unless specifically requested to enter by the duly appointed SCB Meeting Referee". That way everyone knows exactly what it's gonna cost them to approach the Ref at his work station.

For minor offences the rule could specify for example "A breach of this regulation carries a penalty of £25 during NDL events, £50 for CL and £100 for PL"

It's not hard to grade the offences and provide a league scale which will remove any suggestions of bias and those offences for which a penalty cannot be predetermined then everybody gets there *rse out of bed and trots off to Rugby to deal with it.

I shat myself when I had to go to the RAC Club in Pall Mall to explain a recurring offence.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Byker Biker

[The Doctor... 1,478]

On 10/10/2019 at 6:00 AM, Ringitsneck said:

I'll rephrase it then so you get the message.

 An argument and an assault.

which one should attract the heaviest fine?

 

The assault should get a ban.  Your mate should get a fine. So no comparison really. Next ?

[HenryW 1,178]

2 hours ago, The Doctor... said:

The assault should get a ban.  Your mate should get a fine. So no comparison really. Next ?

Ahhh, but then you get into the details of what this person calls an "assault". Apparently the SCB didn't see it the same, so there may have been a good reason for their decision.

I guess what we have learned is that any SCB decision needs to have a proper explanation publicly published. 

[The Doctor... 1,478]

2 hours ago, HenryW said:

Ahhh, but then you get into the details of what this person calls an "assault". Apparently the SCB didn't see it the same, so there may have been a good reason for their decision.

I guess what we have learned is that any SCB decision needs to have a proper explanation publicly published. 

Of course..  i dont even remember the Cook one at the fours tbh.  Just generally meant an assault merits a ban rather than fine.