Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
hawks 1975

KENT ROYALS 2020

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, szkocjasid said:

As it contradicts the announcement by Jason Pipe, I'd say it could be clearer!

As a rule of thumb the rule book takes precedence over announcements by Jason Pipe

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

As it contradicts the announcement by Jason Pipe, I'd say it could be clearer!

As a rule of thumb the rule book takes precedence over announcements by Jason Pipe. Of course it would help if I was looking at the correct rulebook. 

I've just spotted this  in the SUPPLEMENTARY regulations:

013.6 NDL Facilities - page 122
DELETE THIS SECTION
ADD –
i. A guest is permitted for a missing number 1 rider.
ii. A missing rider, 2 to 5 by MA, either RR or an unattached rider.
iii. A missing Reserve Rider, 6 & 7 by MA, an unattached rider.
If a rider is representing their FMN in an FIM / FIME Championship, irrespective of the riders MA, 
a choice of G or RR facility is available at the Team Managers discretion.

 

My sincere apologies, I genuinely thought I was right on this one, but I was WRONG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, arnieg said:

As a rule of thumb the rule book takes precedence over announcements by Jason Pipe. Of course it would help if I was looking at the correct rulebook. 

I've just spotted this  in the SUPPLEMENTARY regulations:

013.6 NDL Facilities - page 122
DELETE THIS SECTION
ADD –
i. A guest is permitted for a missing number 1 rider.
ii. A missing rider, 2 to 5 by MA, either RR or an unattached rider.
iii. A missing Reserve Rider, 6 & 7 by MA, an unattached rider.
If a rider is representing their FMN in an FIM / FIME Championship, irrespective of the riders MA, 
a choice of G or RR facility is available at the Team Managers discretion.

 

My sincere apologies, I genuinely thought I was right on this one, but I was WRONG.

So is Morley eligible?

Share this post


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

As a rule of thumb the rule book takes precedence over announcements by Jason Pipe. Of course it would help if I was looking at the correct rulebook. 

I've just spotted this  in the SUPPLEMENTARY regulations:

013.6 NDL Facilities - page 122
DELETE THIS SECTION
ADD –
i. A guest is permitted for a missing number 1 rider.
ii. A missing rider, 2 to 5 by MA, either RR or an unattached rider.
iii. A missing Reserve Rider, 6 & 7 by MA, an unattached rider.
If a rider is representing their FMN in an FIM / FIME Championship, irrespective of the riders MA, 
a choice of G or RR facility is available at the Team Managers discretion.

 

My sincere apologies, I genuinely thought I was right on this one, but I was WRONG.

The pinpoint is the definition of unattached. Do they mean an unattached 3.00 rider like Jason Pipe had said months ago, or is it now any rider not attached to an NL declaration who has a lower NL average than the rider they replace? The latter permits Morley, Verge & Harris and from memory is how RTD has got a few guest bookings since the demise of Newcastle. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speedway for a tenner is a reality. Loads of comments on this subject from time to time and the final home meeting at

Kent on Tuesday is up for grabs at a tenner. Announced last week at the stadium. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2021 at 3:00 PM, East End Fan said:

Speedway for a tenner is a reality. Loads of comments on this subject from time to time and the final home meeting at

Kent on Tuesday is up for grabs at a tenner. Announced last week at the stadium. 

Battle for 3rd place commences with guests on either side both who have kept the race rust at bay on the vetoed IOW this year and would be nice to see that acknowledged.

Whilst the power trio of Gilkes, Kinsley and Mulford may be too hot at home for the colts the tail gets ever longer and Coles plus the two Jacks have had decent meetings around Central Park in the past. The weather is predicted to be fair and the price is right so hopefully the Royals can go out on a positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Battle for 3rd place commences with guests on either side both who have kept the race rust at bay on the vetoed IOW this year and would be nice to see that acknowledged.

Whilst the power trio of Gilkes, Kinsley and Mulford may be too hot at home for the colts the tail gets ever longer and Coles plus the two Jacks have had decent meetings around Central Park in the past. The weather is predicted to be fair and the price is right so hopefully the Royals can go out on a positive.

Surely the guests have been banned for riding overseas, well over Solent? :rolleyes:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Surely the guests have been banned for riding overseas, well over Solent? :rolleyes:

Will they need to take a Covid test to get back in?

Is the IOW on "the list"...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one home win all season for the Royals is both surprising and shocking. A team that has done so well on the road this year and a track with some home advantage yet the fortress that was once Central Park has fallen. Good for entertainment though and hope the numbers were food for a tenner. Shame a late surge or guests diluted the meeting further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Just one home win all season for the Royals is both surprising and shocking. A team that has done so well on the road this year and a track with some home advantage yet the fortress that was once Central Park has fallen. Good for entertainment though and hope the numbers were food for a tenner. Shame a late surge or guests diluted the meeting further.

And equally bizarrely it means Leicester finish bottom despite being unbeaten at home.

After seeing the Colts lacklustre performance at Leicester I didn't expect last night's result. On Saturday only Coles and Harry McGurk impressed, but at Central Park it was  good solid team performance. JPB was noticeably sharper and more competitive while Sam Woolley picked up some  vital points (and featured in one of the season's best races when pipped the line by Vinnie Foord).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, arnieg said:

And equally bizarrely it means Leicester finish bottom despite being unbeaten at home.

After seeing the Colts lacklustre performance at Leicester I didn't expect last night's result. On Saturday only Coles and Harry McGurk impressed, but at Central Park it was  good solid team performance. JPB was noticeably sharper and more competitive while Sam Woolley picked up some  vital points (and featured in one of the season's best races when pipped the line by Vinnie Foord).

Sadly Leicester's season was over once Lawlor lost interest. The Colts on paper have riders who should be setting the league alight and whilst final averages might change Smith and Coles especially should be better than the sub 7 averages they are posting. Belle Vue signed two of the biggest improving reserves which is often key and got let down by the old guard. Wooley seems to be improving now he is settled into a team and against others who have been given chances this year he looks alright. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise about the Royals hopeless home form.Running almost all the home matches at the end of season negated any possible home track advantage, as most of the home riders hadn’t ridden “at home” for months. Only those who “doubled up” showed any home form. 

Coupled with the gusts who were strangers to the Kent track, made the whole NDL 2021 set up at Kent very much a poor relation to the Kings ......

Still got the home fixture at Leicester....which they will probably win ( if they find 7 riders) as they are good “away “ :-) 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, old bob at herne bay said:

Coupled with the guests who were strangers to the Kent track, made the whole NDL 2021 set up at Kent very much a poor relation to the Kings ......

Talking of guests (of which there were none in last night's match) I think the NL have done a good job of reducing guests, by allowing more unattached riders.

I note that despite injuries and a retirement, Belle Vue have not borrowed a guest rider from another team all year.   When McGurk and Bowen were injured, they used unattached 3-point riders.  When Compton was injured they brought Jack Smith in, and when Woodhull retired they brought Sam Woolley in.   Not one rider in the 1-7 of another club appeared for Belle Vue all year!

I've not checked all their results yet, but I can't remember Kent using a guest all year either. (I may be wrong).

Edited by PotteringAround

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, PotteringAround said:

Talking of guests (of which there were none in last night's match) I think the NL have done a good job of reducing guests, by allowing more unattached riders.

I note that despite injuries and a retirement, Belle Vue have not borrowed a guest rider from another team all year.   When McGurk and Bowen were injured, they used unattached 3-point riders.  When Compton was injured they brought Jack Smith in, and when Woodhull retired they brought Sam Woolley in.   Not one rider in the 1-7 of another club appeared for Belle Vue all year!

I've not checked all their results yet, but I can't remember Kent using a guest all year either. (I may be wrong).

Im pretty sure the rules this year is that it has to be unattached guests rather than guests from another team or largely pushed that way. From memory i can only really recall Morley coming in for Kent and Coles guesting for Mildenhall. I do think the idea is a positive one....however its largely been made possible by the number of teams withdrawing. RTD must have ridden for most of the NDL clubs this season but if Newcastle didn't chuck it all in would he have been able to do so.

  • Like 1

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