Tabashir

I quite like it. I think it adds another dimension and a new set of discussion points for riders, fans and commentary. Whether or not having the 'best' pick makes a real or predictable difference over time is another matter. Antonio's performance certainly leads to this view, albeit on a very limited data set. However, for years, we've seen interviews with riders where they've lamented they got a 'bad draw', at least this gives them an opportunity to do something proactive to get a better one. I believe that at this level, so much is also down to psychology on the day. Some riders just seem to do better when faced with a 'tougher' position so in fact having a 'bad' set of gates makes them up their game. Conversely, for a different rider, having a good set of gates could lead to some element of complacency. I'm not saying anyone in the series gets obviously complacent but at this level, minuscule differences add up. With the qualifying being televised, it's something more for the fans to watch and engage with so it's good to try these things. Ultimately, if you are not interested in it, then you don't have to watch it. However, the alternative being a simple lottery, surely this is more interesting than that?

Thanks for the posting. Been trying to find where it is published. Any chance of a link please?

Sorry if this has been asked before, I did search the forums but couldn't see anything... We have a rule that if you touch the tapes, you are excluded. This is pretty much black and white. If it was just this rule, you could attempt to jump the start, but if you got it wrong, you'd be excluded. Simple. However, we also have the 'unsatisfactory start' rule where riders can be judged to have moved before the tapes even if they didn't touch them. Way less black and white and more complicated. It's very rare to go a meeting without a few restarts even if nobody has actually touched the tapes. This, together with the pit gates opening and more messing about before the restart draws things out further. As a fan on the terraces waiting to see racing, it certainly doesn't add anything to the meeting. We now have the further addition of a warning system in the GPs and from the commentary, it appears the FIM have a real bee in their bonnet about people jumping the start. My memory could be playing tricks on me but I'm sure back in the 80s I remember only seeing restarts on an actual tape touching offence. Last night at Cardiff just took the biscuit with the ref stopping the race then admitting there was no problem with the start. I realise this is FIM diktat but I guess I just don't understand why we need this second rule. I realise it is also used to allow all-four-back aka bunching, but for an issue before the tapes have gone up, what is the value?

Sad news, RIP Bob.

I'm not sure that's what @fastgater meant. He was talking about riders that are not good at gating so usually have to pass in the race, aka 'racers', Bomber being a notable example. I don't think he was talking about riders that are known for 'roll starts'. It would actually be likely to give 'racers' an advantage since their lack of gating skills would be more or less negated.

Not sure why, but the forums don't allow me to 'like' posts. Two false starts and one false positive. Although I mentioned the GP, my main concern was league racing, since that is what really needs to attract (and retain) spectators. Also with the GPs, you tend to be taking in the atmosphere (or watching from the comfort and warmth of your armchair) so it's less of a drag. On a drizzling, cold evening sat waiting for multiple restarts is certainly more of a put-off, especially for newbies or casual supporters. Totally agree. Admittedly after many years they've got rid of the 'joker' rule in league now. I know it was called a tactical ride but everyone I explained it to likened it to a joker. Agreed. It may be harder at the lower levels to afford transponders, beams and the like and I have no clue how much it would cost. However, maybe introducing at top level then cascading to lower leagues if successful could help at least prevent the lower leagues losing money on an experiment. Hard to tell from a distance, but definitely looks further than that to me. If they were really less than 3" away then it would be impossible to jump without touching the tapes, yet here we are. Yup, would be far less irritating if they just came back round. No 2 mins for a restart.

I see your point @OveFundinFan, just think that we've maybe gone too far the other way. Speedway is at it's essence very simple. It can be very exciting but all the rules (and delays) can detract from that. As @DontForgetTheFuelTapsBruv mentions, maybe starting them closer to the tapes so they can't move without touching them is the answer. Or as mentioned in another thread, transponders so that there can be no arguments.

I know it is cheating *now* because that is the rule *now*. My question was more why did the rule get brought in from the time it wasn't a rule, thus wasn't cheating (and should we go back to the original rules). Couldn't agree more, except it's not just GPs. I pay to see speedway racing, not draw out the evening listening to the same pop tracks over a tannoy each week and drinking the fizzy 'beer' on offer, even though due to delays and restarts that's what I end up doing! 'Certainly when I've taken non-speedway friends along, they have generally enjoyed the racing but can't understand why they've been there over 2 hours to see 15 mins of racing. Makes me think this is one thing that is not helping speedway's popularity. Although the last couple of seasons, I think there has been an improvement, there is definitely a marked difference in some refs on how quickly the 2 mins comes on between heats. I'm sure some of them read it as there should be at least 4 minutes before the 2 mins comes on...!

Thanks for the info here. I've been searching all over BT site trying to find the official source of this but cannot see it anywhere. I found this but it's a third party site: http://sport-onthebox.com/2017/04/05/bt-sport-2017-live-speedway-schedule/ Was this the site you used or is there an official one somewhere?

Shocker of a ref decision really. Should have been excluded under the 2 min rule and rerun with Kyle off 15m once he had moved forward signalling he was 'ready to race'. However, a question for those more knowledgeable of the rulebook: Under 15.3.4, if he had not moved forward and instead continued to adjust his goggles, would he have got away with the timer running out as he would have been 'under the control of the start marshal'? With the form of the reserves that night, it may still have been a 5-1. However, we can never know the outcome of what that would or not have been. It would be a nice touch for MF/NM to offer to at least split the difference in the interests of sportsmanship and dock 2 points from the Poole score. I guess that probably isn't in the rulebook either so it would have to be 'In the interests of Speedway'! For those on here that say that the SCB not adjusting the result after the match will make a further mockery of an amateur sport, citing that most 'serious' sports will change results after a game, I'll just leave you to cast your mind back to this incident in the most popular sport in the world: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8771294.stm . The result wasn't changed and I don't think you saw a mass decline in football fans because of it. Admittedly there was a lot of mickey takes of FIFA. I don't follow many other sports so I'm no authority, but from the post-match alterations I can recall, most are to do with applying/cancelling a ban or other disciplinary rather than affecting the actual result. I'm sure somebody will post to prove me wrong though

I was expecting some disagreement, but was hoping for some enlightening reasons to go along with it.

I seem to remember in the long distant past when a lot of riders only turned up with one bike there was a club 'spare' that could be used in the event of a breakdown. To reduce costs, transport and the need to have separate kit just for the UK, would it be possible to have some sort of club owned bike system where riders that are in the squad can elect to use these instead of maintaining their own? I know riders like their own setups, tuning etc and I'm sure there are a myriad of potential issues that could be levelled against this idea, but just putting it out there.

Awesome job Andy. Works perfectly for me on my Archlinux and Ubuntu boxes (running MythTV frontends) and my Galaxy Note 2 running CyanogenMod. That may be all it is doing, but it took me a lot less time to view the howto video and install the software than it would have done to find all of these clips. Particularly as even at this early stage with minimal content there are clips that I have just enjoyed (or will be when I get time) that I wouldn't even have thought of looking for. For a lot of folks, particularly those that are not tech savvie, I think "very useful" may be quite a sizeable understatement.

If Darcy's points are to be struck from the record for that period, then it's clear that KL are the rightful table toppers. Whether you agree with the FIM or not, they have said the points should go, surely that is the result. In the UK now, and at the time of this all happening, there is a presumption of 'innocent until proven guilty'. A quick hearing then ban would have resolved whether Darcy could ride for all parties. This didn't happen. As it was, the Poole management could hardly be expected to replace one of their heat leaders on an accusation alone during a period where the FIM had not suspended him. In fact, given the law at the moment, that could arguably left them open to a loss of earnings claim by Darcy should he have ended up not being suspended. Nobody can say for sure what would have happened had KL had the choice. They would still have had to beat 2 out of the 3 teams and they were decimated by injury. Yes, they may have chosen Bees. Would they have won over 2 legs? I wouldn't have put much on it. If they had beaten Bees, then with the delay, they may have been a little stronger again when they met Pirates but we'll never know. To me, this all goes to show that there should be 2 cups, one for the league winners, then one for the playoffs. A team, in this case KL, should have something to show for the fact they were the best over the season, not for the few matches after the league end which is far more susceptible to both injury and fatigue for the riders.

Totally agree with the comments on here that the reasons for the decision and the views of the folks involved in the decision to abandon should be made public. I'd go a step further and also ask for the same if there is a question of whether to abandon and it's decided to continue. I've commented on another thread that refs leave too long between heats generally. The way that Christina Turnbull ran the meeting at Poole on Thursday demonstrated how a meeting could be run and get the entire meeting done in under 75 mins, which included a 10 minute break for the rain to ease. I know Sky want to egg it all up in the name of showbiz but the delay to the start and slow progress through it has robbed both teams of properly deciding the final on the track. Who were you talking about SCB? The first sentence I assumed it was Matt Ford but there was an interview with him at the end. Also seemed that Bomber agreed with the decision to call it off from what he said.

There is a petition going on to try to get the government to adopt the "Agent of Change" principle where if somebody builds near an existing noisy site then it is their problem to soundproof, not the site that is already existing. This seems to fit the situation that Speedway tracks can encounter. Not sure if the principle applies if somebody moves into a property that is already there. The petition is focused on music, but any changes in legislation would likely cover other 'noisy' sites. https://www.change.org/p/sajid-javid-mp-adopt-the-agent-of-change-principle Takes a few seconds to sign.

Nice one Vince.

Two things I believe would make a huge difference: (1) loyalty average discount so for each year after the first in the same team, the rider gets a discount on his average up to a maximum so that it encourages keeping the teams together and fans affinity with the riders. I'm sure there are some edge cases that would need to be sorted, but that's the idea. (2) at every meeting there is just too long between heats. How does 15 mins of racing + 30 mins of 2 minute warnings equate to nearly 2 hours? Do they even do the 2.5 mins for same rider in consecutive heats that they used to do years ago? I can't tell because the ref waits so long before putting the warning light on these days! Bang through the heats quick and can either get home early or more time for some youngsters racing after the main event for better value.

I take your point SCB. We come now to the exceedingly grey area of interpretation. "Immediately" itself seems a pretty black and white word. However, the question becomes: "Is it immediate from the point in time of the offence itself or immediate from the point in time that the ref determines it is an offence?" Most commonly, these rules are used with no replays available, so the 2 points in time basically are the same. However, when replays are available, the two may vary. In this case it could be argued that after watching the replay, he determined it was an offence and immediately excluded him. To my mind, when the technology is available to improve decision making, then I'd like to see it used as it reduces the chance of injustice but I can see that others may disagree for a variety of reasons. Either way, there should be some claification by the authorities. The assertion in my original post, however was based further down in your quote, namely that: "If, in the opinion of the Referee, such conduct produces an advantage to the rider (or team) involved or affects the chances of one or more riders, the Referee *may* stop the heat and order a re-run." I added the emphasis around the word "may". The point being, that the ref does not have to stop the heat, he can at his discression let it run. Maybe I've read it wrong, but that was my interpretation.

I have a lot of sympathy with Jim Lawrence's decision. To the point that he didn't stop the race, well it is in the rules that a rider can be excluded for dangerous riding after the race. The fact that the rule is exercised rarely should not be a reason to ignore it's existence when it is appropriate to apply it. Taking whether the decision itself was wrong out of the equation for a second, if, as Lawrence did, you believe the rider was dangerous, surely it would have been the most equitable thing for the teams to have let it run? The rider in first had done the hard work so why should he be penalised for something that happened behind him? How many times have you all seen a re-run and the rider having done nothing wrong in the first place loses it second time round. For me, it always takes some the shine off that race if that happens, yes, even if the team I'm rooting for benefits, although maybe then a little less so! In a non televised meet, the decision has to be made split second as there are no replays available. Surely with the technology available in that meeting, it was better to let it run, particularly as it was nearly the end of the race, and analyse the result after. Not sure this will really open the can of worms for most regular speedway meets as there will be no replays available. To those that say it will drag the meetings out, surely not having a re-run with several minutes of pit time then gardening and general messing about would make the meetings quicker? Of course it would rob the fans of a couple of extra laps of racing. I thought the same as a couple of others on here that in the previous incident Nilsson had more (admittedly not a lot) room to shut off and that come Krchmar's turn, had he tried to shut off at the time Nilsson came across him, his bike would have straightened and he would have accelerated and really had nowhere to go and the fact that he was slammed into the fence as opposed to nudged in the previous incident was the deciding factor as to what counted as 'dangerous'. However, since I've never been on a speedway bike, I'll defer to those who have been as far as whether Krchmar could or should have shut off. I still think it was a courageous, even if ultimately incorrect, decision. There has been discussion on the spat between Nicki and Greg/Tai/Noddy before. They were wanting a stance on dangerous riding and this may have been the first attempt at starting down that route. Yes, it's not a knitting circle, but I for one don't go to speedway to see someone off in an ambulance either. There is a line between hard and dangerous and it's the Ref's job to call that. Sometimes they may may get it wrong. Doesn't mean they should never call it. The fact that it's out there now that they may start to call it a little more often means we may just see a little more passing and less fencing I hope.

Thanks. Had me confused - not difficult to achieve at the best of times!

Pardon my ignorance - what are the bonuses here if it's an individual meeting?