All Activity

Ah I have heard rumours Doyley lives near me in Poringland but other people say he lives in Wymondham.

I'm sure no rider is universally liked. But I do think Tom has wide support and like me, would like to see him rise through the ranks.

I'm an imposter obviously. But deflection won't help! You still haven't said what you believe the SCB statement confirms in detail and how that will be applied in the next occurrence of such a decision that a ref has to make

Just finalising next seasons championship winning side i believe

Anybody seen Trackprat 🤔 I thought he would be all over this 🤣🤣🤣

🤡 Sour grapes , keep munching on them,

I don't agree with the SCB statement because it is woefully inadequate. It doesn't explain the rule we're all debating or the basis upon which it made it's decision. Or what might happen should a similar situation arise before the rules are rewritten, amended or "enhanced". If the SCB believe they can sweep this under the carpet by saying nothing, they are sadly mistaken. The sport might be in a mess but the fans and both clubs involved deserve better. In fact, everyone connected with the sport does.

All very confident Victor will be back

So it's looking very near a sell out, good news, BUT capacity only around 3000 , so imo not a massive crowd, as last year Ipswich was around 5-6000 and Tai got 5000 . Thoughts 🤔

Any news on the statement from the Poole management as mentioned in today's speedway star 🤔

As usual it appears everyone is heading Glasgow. Maybe they should have trials day to sort them out.🤔😂😂

Stene Pijper has had 3 years in the NDL, but hasn't developed as well as expected, no idea why though. Only average 3.6 in the NDL With the rumoured top 4, Ace's average would be too high for Glasgow to fit him in

So, just as a reminder, the SCB statement says 'Following the 2nd Leg of the Championship Play Off Final on Wednesday 7th October 2026 between Poole and Scunthorpe, the Scunthorpe club lodged an appeal against the decision of the result of the Super Heat, where it was alleged that Poole Rider Zach Cook had breached SCB Regulation - • 012.1.11 Leaving the Track A rider whose machine crosses the inner edge of the track with 2 wheels must be disqualified unless, in the opinion of the Referee, the action was taken in the interests of safety for other riders or the rider involved was forced off course by another rider. Having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached, however due to the result being announced this was now a Statement of Fact and any appeal is inadmissible as per SCB Regulation 018.1.2 a) Therefore, the result stands as declared, and the Scunthorpe Promotion have accepted the decision.' So, what fact has the SCB declared? 'A rider whose machine crosses the inner edge of the track with 2 wheels must be disqualified unless, in the opinion of the Referee, the action was taken in the interests of safety for other riders or the rider involved was forced off course by another rider.' It has therefore confirmed that the machine crossed the inner edge of the track with two wheels. As it hasn't said how it has arrived at that conclusion it may well be that it decided that both wheels were over the centre green side of the inner edge. The reality is that you can't conclude what fact has been decided upon from that statement. If you have a different statement that validates your version of the facts I'd be very happy to see it. You also say 'You can't argue against facts' despite that being exactly what the SCB has done by saying the referee got it wrong despite it being a 'statement of fact' which makes an appeal inadmissible

Stene Pijper needs multiple seasons in the NDL first, he's got a long way to go, brilliant prospect, just not ready yet. I wonder if Ace Pijper could be heading to Glasgow though as their number 2?

Yes and that individual requirements is basically why a standard out the box engine wouldn’t really work in speedway, it is nothing new, when I was spannering for Adam skornicki he told me at a meeting in Sweden his team mate Jason crump lent him a bike cause adam’s had a problem, he said it was unridable because Adam likes a motor that revs hard but is unreactive and crumpy likes one that is lively and reactive also while at wolves Adam borrowed an engine off Freddie lindgren and didn't like it, riders have different preferences, different cams, different flywheels, what works for one doesn’t work for someone else, also an anomaly that occurs in all motor sport anywhere in the world is no 2 identical engines will ride the same, same batch, same castings,same parts and settings and one will always feel better than the other

That's fantastic but I fear your numbers wont make up the diff between a crowd size on the Friday and Saturday. Cant understand why it wasn't a Thursday which was Redcar's original race night.

No, I don't expect you to accept people's unsubstantiated opinions. But you seem to be getting confused. The SCB statement is not an unsubstantiated opinion. It's a statement of fact, just as the decision of the referee on the night is a statement of fact. You can't argue against facts.

So in a discussion forum you want me to accept people's unsubstantiated opinions as fact & shut up because it doesn't suit your narrative? .... The SCB bottled it and if people interperate what I said as that a metre wide line that the SCB rules specifically say is on the track surface, could extend across the infield then maybe it's their eyes that need opening, not mine and I have a right to reply.

People don't move on because the SCB has not properly explained its decision. So when a similar issue occurs ( and its not beyond the realms of possibility it will happen tomorrow) we will have the same argument again.

The fact is that the regulations relating to this are very poorly written and completely ambiguous Your point about the inner edge is well made. The part of the wheels that have to cross the inner edge ( however that is defined) is not stated. No part of the wheel is actually in contact with the inner edge - the tyre is, and that is not even mentioned. What about the part of the wheel which is closest to the main part of the bike, and which will cross the line before the part of the tyre touching the line will? In whichever definition is accepted then how much of the tyre / wheel must cross the line? 1mm or the whole tyre / wheel in touch with the line. You can come up with any number of definitions. All the SCB needs to do is evidence its decision. Presumably referee training must cover that and should be able to be evidenced? If it can't be then that alone demonstrates an ambiguity

Why are you continuing to argue this? Scunthorpe didn't agree with the referee's decision on the night, but have now said it's time to move on. If you don't agree with the SCB statement, maybe it's time for you to do the same.

Back that up with substance then. Not your personal opinion or Google AI. It may open my eyes....😁 I've backed my opinion with a quoted line from the SCB regulations. Every time I ask those who refute it to back up their opinions with fact, I'm met with silence and tumbleweed. As I said... if the line was a meter wide it would have to be on the raceable surface to comply with the SCB written rule.

So let's assume for the moment that the boundary is the side of the white line next to the track. How much of the tyre has to be on the line to constitute crossing? All of it, or 1mm? ( Also bearing in mind that a chalk line is acceptable and so may not be sharp, and the regulations don't even use the term tyre). All that definition does is moves the decision a bit to the right. I have no doubt the regulations will be re-written over the winter, and may well include a better definition of the inner edge of the track and width of line. This will just continue to rumble on unless the SCB makes a further statement confirming the detail of its decision.

I disagree, it speciifically says the line is to be "on the track surface" That is what is written, not my definition. If the line was a metre wide it would have to extend across the shale and be part of the track to comply with the written rule, with the inner edge of the track being the meeting of the line & the infield. As I said, markings on the infield are specified in the following paragraph. The White line is stated as 'on the track surface' so how can it count as the infield?

Keep dreaming