How The Hell Was Nicholls Excluded ?

[21st century heathen 220]

I don't have time to read all the posts on this thread, but I can see from the first few pages how it was going.

 

First of all I like both riders, so no bias here.

 

I think Scott was very unlucky. Hans got himself into trouble by leaning all over Scott. For me Hans had to be excluded. Had Hans gone down on the previous bend when Scott gave him a proper nudge then Scott would have to have been excluded. As Kelvin said if Hans had backed off going into the turn he would have had a good chance of turning back under Scott on the exit of the turn. Hans was really struggling once the track got very wet, and was riding as badly as I've seen from him in a long while. I think he was so desperate to hold on because he had no confidence in himself in those conditions. Had it been dry I think he'd have backed his own ability to outrace Scotty without having to lean all over him.

 

Scott was lucky in Italy, but very unlucky here. It's a shame because another final would have got him at least 18 for third (as Crump fell), and that would have closed the gap on the top 5. As it is he's still on the brink. His biggest problem this year is that he's not scoring that many to make the semi-s, so he doesn't carry many points forward if he doesn't make the final.

[Trees 2,814]

Sooooooooo is there some argument for the age old rule in speedway, that if there is a stoppage a rider has to be excluded, to be altered to a rider has to be excluded unless it's six of one, half dozen of the other???? In my mind that would be fair .............

[Subedei 0]

But has there ever been such a rule? After all, neither Nicki P nor Hancock were excluded after their coming together, exiting the 2nd turn, in Prague a couple of years ago?

[garf 0]

. . . . .unless it's six of one, half dozen of the other. . . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Excuse my lack of knowledge, but what does this exactly mean ?

[Guest schumifan]

Excuse my lack of knowledge, but what does this exactly mean ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Both equally at fault

[garf 0]

Thanks.

 

That makes some sense to the postings then.

[21st century heathen 220]

You will also see the term "6 and two 3's" used.

[Ron Butler 0]

Time to give my verdit on the Hans vs Nicholls incident.

 

Even though I'm slightly biased towards Hans I really can't decide who was at fault! Nicholls gave Hans a nudge, Hans was leaning over Nicholls on the straight, Nicholls appeared to give Hans the slightest of nudges just before he fell, but I wouldn't say it would be enough to see Hans go over.

 

So. Ezekiel, what is your verdict?  Jury rooms are not furnished with fences!........

 

 

 

What some people are forgetting are the conditions. If the conditions had been better then I don't think Hans would have slid off.

 

I think Nicholls was unlucky, very unlucky, as the ref's decision could have gone either way...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...........and neither are referees' boxes. The man had to decide one way or t'other. He was bound to upset some and please others.

 

 

IMO if two riders are going at each other like this, whoever falls and causes the stoppage goes, not too diss-similar to the Carter/Penhall race and i thought the same about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great phrase there, Steve old pal. Even the mighty-mouthed Millard himself couldn't better it!

 

 

Dont you remeber fisichella shouting at his pit crew last year?

I think it was along the lines of "this f*****g cars a piece od s**T....." etc etc!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I gather that Nicholls made his invective laden comments during a person-to-person live television interview. That being so, it's rather differnet than the Fisichella occasion, surely.

 

 

 

Why the hell does everyone stick up for Nicholls?last night he got what he deserved he thinks he can throw his weight about everyone else has got to take it,when someone does it to him all hell breaksout .if you give bloody take it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No point in e-mailing you a Scott Nicholls Fan Club enrolment form then?

 

 

Well, I have now seen the race at last. I was unable to watch it last night but recorded it and saw it this morning.

 

Having watched it several times, I think it was a very tough decision to make. No doubt a 50-50 call. I think if I'd been the ref I would probably have excluded Andersen but I've got no real argument with the decision.

 

Andersen was not 100% at fault and the decision certainly doesn't make speedway "a joke".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps, Norman, Mr Grodski should have excluded both riders; one for dangerous riding and t'other fer being t'primary cause o' t'race being stopped!

 

 

 

Lupos I`m not biased I`m expressing an opinion!

I`ve got reasons for not particulaly liking anderson but thats my problem.

Just for the record I`m not a great fan of nicholls either but he tries? It just seems that when something is said "against" Mr anderson we are biased etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gad Sir! we're not biased we're British. Though the sun has now set on the Empire we do not have to abandon the values of our forefathers, or our empiric principles. Though young Nicholls may, at times, be very trying we must defend him against these foreign walloons!

[iris123 20,997]

foreign walloons!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely there is no need to call inhabitant of Wallonia foreign.That goes without saying,unless you live in Belgium?

[Reviresco 708]

Surely there is no need to call inhabitant of Wallonia foreign.That goes without saying,unless you live in Belgium?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ha, ha. Brilliant Iris. You would have thought that Herr BertHoven would have known that. Maybe he should thread a little more carefully next time?

[norbold 7,116]

Sooooooooo is there some argument for the age old rule in speedway, that if there is a stoppage a rider has to be excluded, to be altered to a rider has to be excluded unless it's six of one, half dozen of the other????  In my mind that would be fair .............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is of course a case for all four back...but then is that fair on the other two riders in the race who weren't involved at all? Perhaps there could be a case for excluding both.

[sweet_lil_mystery 0]

There is of course a case for all four back...but then is that fair on the other two riders in the race who weren't involved at all? Perhaps there could be a case for excluding both.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Has that ever been done before?

[Hazzman 72]

People lack of patriotism is seriously disconcerned on here. It's only natural to be biased for Nicholls but cor blimey was Andersen at fault for this latest incident. He was almost leaning on Scott. Nicholls showed a bit of grit (first time in a long while) and he was excluded. In Italy, I think most people agree Nicholls deserved to go, many of us tried to see the referee's opinion to understand in racing terms why he let it go. As soon as the Polish ref excluded Nicholls, an angle came on Sky showing no touch.

 

I agree with Subedei, Nicholls had just had an incident with Pedersen and that is bound to play on the ref's mind. Similar to Penhall/Carter incident. Andersen was giving Nicholls just as much abuse with elbows.

 

All I Can Say Is BSI wont want to drop either rider as it bases perfect storylines for next year's soap opera.

 

Nicholl's language was captured by a cameraman, Andersen did it in front of interviewee and like. Nicholls was caught off guard and to expect riders to be little soldiers is rubbish. It's an emotional sport.

[Ron Butler 0]

There have been many comments to the effect that it was a 50/50 decision.  Perhaps it is time to look again at the requirement to exclude someone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm very disappointed in you, me old saint. When I first read that I thought you were the Chief Referee or, at least, the BSPA chairman and you were going to give the official take on this controversy. Actually it's becoming quite entertaining on here!

 

 

 

I can't believe this, 10 pages and counting again over Hans v Scott 

I notice no thread on the Crump v Lindbach episode, (or if there is not 10 pages).

 

Nothing anyone says will change the decision from last night, and I think we all ought to thank those brave riders for riding in atrocious conditions.

 

What seems to have started as a bit of rivalry at the Witches in 2004, has now got to the stage where if they are not careful someone will get hurt.

 

I'm afraid all this discussion on the TV doesn't help as they are so biased they can't see the truth(or not as the case may be) if it came and bit them on the nose.

 

Scott is a hothead, and at times loses his head and Hans is completely the opposite and is cool and determined, both dangerous when roused.

 

It does make for exciting racing, but at the end of the day safety must come first.

 

I do think it sad that people have to resort to name calling etc., if a decision goes against their favourite rider, not necessary and I suspect untrue to boot.

 

My feelings on the matter, for what it is worth, Scott had his luck in Lonigo and this time wasn't his

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you for putting the matter into perspective. A little logic is as good as a spoonful of castor oil for clearing out the rubbish

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

i think hans had decided it was to wet and he was heading for the grass (going by his thoughts on rain when racing in GB) but scott was saying no you dont. Or maybe he wanted to try scotts bike for size, cause he had his top half on it so all he had to do was throw his leg over

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mods: please take note of this comment. May be worth 5% of a warning!

 

 

 

Or was it the B.O that made Hans bail out?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"BO" was what Mr Nicholls yelled down Mr Andersson's earhole. I don't think he meant either Body Odour or Bale Out though!

 

 

Do you mean excused or excluded? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Excommunicated? exterminated? Personally, Schumi, I prefer 'expunged'. It's an amusing sounding word and has a sense of permanency!

 

 

If Hans wasn`t so intent into getting into Scotties underpants. There would of been no need to give him the elbow. 

 

Joking aside Hans gave as good as he got. 50-50 decision IMHO

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Looks like being a busy time for the mods, bless 'em!

 

 

Isnt it amzing how people only see what they want to see. As someone said elswhere you can never win an argument, or even have an unbiased argument on here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

An extremely rare animal, Joe. About as rare as a pregnant panda. You will probably find either in a Moscow zoo!

Edited August 15, 2006 by Ludwig_ron_BertHoven

[Silver Bee 57]

but certainly not a patch on the big boys and not a reliable or magnificent number 1.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But that doesn't make someone half hearted at all

 

You'll always get 100% of McGowan in every single race, couldn't accuse him or being half hearted but he won't ever be a patch on the big boys or probably even a number 1.