Pawlicki And His Average Manipulation

[TrueBee 147]

Kennett probably. How can Harris be on a 7.85 or is that with the British reduction rule?

 

Looks strong, if I was Ipswich next season I would be worried....

 

Looks strong with Pawlicki's really average of 4.00

 

I think Harris is on 8.08 for team building purposes, although SCB/Authorised are the Bees fans with the figures

 

I'd also take Sweetman over Barker if he wants to stay with us.

[BigFatDave 258]

Perhaps my memory plays tricks.

Perhaps I should go back and live in the 60s and 70s

 

If you'd actually lived in the 60s & 70s you wouldn't remember a thing, man.

 

Peace & Love, BFD.

[eastern wolf 0]

If you'd actually lived in the 60s & 70s you wouldn't remember a thing, man.

 

Peace & Love, BFD.

 

 

Unfortunately I lived in the East Midlands not Bondi Beach. Man.

[BigFatDave 258]

Unfortunately I lived in the East Midlands not Bondi Beach. Man.

60s in London, Europe (Paris, Marseilles, Berlin,), Morocco, Tunisia: 70s the Middle East, Afghanistan, India, South East Asia THEN Bondi! (Lucky I hung on to me old passport or I wouldn't have a clue, man!)

Edited October 18, 2010 by BigFatDave

[eastern wolf 0]

60s in London, Europe (Paris, Marseilles, Berlin,), Morocco, Tunisia: 70s the Middle East, Afghanistan, India, South East Asia THEN Bondi! (Lucky I hung on to me old passport or I wouldn't have a clue, man!)

 

 

Bit like dog sh!t then - all over the place

[Gearhead 31]

Kennett probably. How can Harris be on a 7.85 or is that with the British reduction rule?

 

Looks strong, if I was Ipswich next season I would be worried....

 

Kenneth sounds good,4 British riders too,I think there should be a bigger reduction for British riders too,maybe as Poole have an adverse reaction to British riders then maybe Shovar will try a one man crusade against that, just like he is on this matter?

 

More water and biscuits Lapdog?

[eastern wolf 0]

Kenneth sounds good,4 British riders too,I think there should be a bigger reduction for British riders too,maybe as Poole have an adverse reaction to British riders then maybe Shovlar will try a one man crusade against that just like he is on this matter?

 

More water and biscuits Lapdog?

 

 

If Coventry signed 7 British riders it means they'd be able to strengthen up to 46.13 instead of the 45 they strengthened up to this season

[Steve Shovlar 10,439]

If Coventry signed 7 British riders it means they'd be able to strengthen up to 46.13 instead of the 45 they strengthened up to this season

[BigFatDave 258]

Bit like dog sh!t then - all over the place

.........and turning white with age.

[SCB 0]

I would have said it was as a stand-by when teams are using R/R or when neither double-upper is available. I'm sure when the #8 rules were introduced it wasn't meant to allow teams to track a weakened team as Coventry (and of course not only Coventry) have done in order to protect riders' averages.

 

 

Why is the only reference to a #8 in Rule 17 contained within the section concerning double-uppers (apart from the next one about re-declaration)?

So, the rule is only to allow you to replace double uppers? Which is why despite the the fact the rulebook refer to double uppers and THEN says, "18.1.5.1 If no facility is applicable then provided it conforms additionally to SR 18.3;

a) In the EL, that Teams #8, or a PL Rider with a PL CMA of 6.00 or less."

 

If it only meant to be for double uppers, why would they bother with that rule?

 

It's not like Coventry have done something thats not mentioned in the rulebook, so it's not a loop-hole, they have just used one of the rules.

[eastern wolf 0]

So, the rule is only to allow you to replace double uppers? Which is why despite the the fact the rulebook refer to double uppers and THEN says, "18.1.5.1 If no facility is applicable then provided it conforms additionally to SR 18.3;

a) In the EL, that Teams #8, or a PL Rider with a PL CMA of 6.00 or less."

 

If it only meant to be for double uppers, why would they bother with that rule?

 

It's not like Coventry have done something thats not mentioned in the rulebook, so it's not a loop-hole, they have just used one of the rules.

 

 

The loophole certainly seems to be there to be exploited - otherwise the BSPA would surely have stepped in and put a stop to the "now you see him - now you don't" when it became obvious what Coventry were doing. I have a feeling that Pawlicki will be reassessed to 5.00 at the conference. Not sure if that'll make anybody happy.

[SCB 0]

The loophole certainly seems to be there to be exploited - otherwise the BSPA would surely have stepped in and put a stop to the "now you see him - now you don't" when it became obvious what Coventry were doing. I have a feeling that Pawlicki will be reassessed to 5.00 at the conference. Not sure if that'll make anybody happy.

It's not a loop-hole. It's a rule. What part of that don't you grasp.

 

A loop-hole is when a scenario is not explicitly mentioned so cannot be prevented, this scenario is refered to, so Coventry are able to use such a rule/scenario.

 

A team can at any time use their number 8 to replace any rider, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a loop-hole. Is the tactical ride rule a loop-hole? After all, thats a stupid rule.

[stevebrum 6,821]

32 pages and still none the wiser?

 

Dirt, the sensible of us already know the answer - There was NO manipulation

 

 

Bit like dog sh!t then - all over the place

 

 

[chrisw1875 0]

Dirt, the sensible of us already know the answer - There was NO manipulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

exactly.i think we need to just say it is sour grapes. by god i would be frustrated if my team romped the league but didnt win the title. but lets be fair was it that coventry cheated or was it that there was far too many poole riders not at the races over the two legs. lets say fair play to rosco and coventry.a fine display from a struggling team over the last third of the season.the momentum was coventrys and they kept it up in the final.Also i think Harris getting up after his fall broke the hearts of poole and at that point i think deep down they knew it was over.in my eyes poole lost the fight

[Barney Rabbit 727]

So, the rule is only to allow you to replace double uppers? Which is why despite the the fact the rulebook refer to double uppers and THEN says, "18.1.5.1 If no facility is applicable then provided it conforms additionally to SR 18.3;

a) In the EL, that Teams #8, or a PL Rider with a PL CMA of 6.00 or less."If it only meant to be for double uppers, why would they bother with that rule?

 

It's not like Coventry have done something thats not mentioned in the rulebook, so it's a loop-hole, they have just used one of the rules.

 

The rule actually reads :- In the EL, that Teams #8, or a PL Rider (with a PL CMA of 6.00 or less) and in conformity to SR 18.3. The brackets make a difference or why put them in.

It could be read that the rule means whichever non-facility is used (the team's #8 or a PL guest), he must have a PL CMA of 6 or less.

 

Take the hypothetical case of a #8 who's PL average has risen to, say, 9.8. In the event of n unauthorised no-show his team can use a rider with a PL average of 9.8 whilst a team without a #8 are restricted to a PL guest of 6 or less. Maybe, maybe not.

 

The loophole certainly seems to be there to be exploited - otherwise the BSPA would surely have stepped in and put a stop to the "now you see him - now you don't" when it became obvious what Coventry were doing. I have a feeling that Pawlicki will be reassessed to 5.00 at the conference. Not sure if that'll make anybody happy.

 

That's if somebody in the BSPA even knows the rules. The 180 hour rule was broken this season (4/8 and 11/8) with no apparent problem so either nobody actually knows the rules or they're not particularly bothered if (some) teams transgress.