Robert Lee 128 Posted July 22, 2015 They deserved to win as they scored the most point under the rules of the sport. Simple. Anyone saying anything else is deluded. Everything changes when you take the tac ride away, there is no guarantee poole would have scored 46.. May have been more, may have been less. delude vb (tr): to deceive; mislead; beguile. I assure you, I am not deceived, misled or beguiled - I just have an opinion on the current rules of the sport. I'm entitled to that as you are entitled to yours, but, unlike you, I don't believe that anyone who doesn't share my opinion must be wrong (or deluded). 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TesarRacing 1,825 Posted July 22, 2015 Indeed, if anything it's the fans who accept or like the double points tr bollox who are far more likely to be deluded. Those of us who haven't fallen for the ridiculous concept of scoring double 'just because you're losing' clearly haven't been deceived, mislead or beguiled, quite the opposite in fact! I don't think BWitcher was giving his opinion on the TR rule - I took it that he was stating that under the current rules, Wolves deserved to win by virtue of scoring the most points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midland Red 2,383 Posted July 22, 2015 the ambulance is stationery in its normal position So, the ambulance at Monmore Green is made out of paper, pens and pencils!!! Or is it just stationary? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) delude vb (tr): to deceive; mislead; beguile. I assure you, I am not deceived, misled or beguiled - I just have an opinion on the current rules of the sport. I'm entitled to that as you are entitled to yours, but, unlike you, I don't believe that anyone who doesn't share my opinion must be wrong (or deluded). An opinion of the 'rules' in the sport is a totally different thing to deciding who 'deserved' to win a speedway meeting. Go back and read my post, I haven't questioned your opinion on the TR rule, nor indeed have I given mine. I have simply corrected you on your incorrect and mis-informed assertion that Wolverhampton were not the 'deserving' winners of the meeting. Indeed, if anything it's the fans who accept or like the double points tr bollox who are far more likely to be deluded. Those of us who haven't fallen for the ridiculous concept of scoring double 'just because you're losing' clearly haven't been deceived, mislead or beguiled, quite the opposite in fact! See above I will add that most moaning about the TR rule fell for the ridiclous concept of being able to substitute in better riders in races 'just because they were losing', a far more unfair rule. Again, not saying I didn't prefer it, simply that it was more unfair. I don't think BWitcher was giving his opinion on the TR rule - I took it that he was stating that under the current rules, Wolves deserved to win by virtue of scoring the most points. Correct! Edited July 22, 2015 by BWitcher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert Lee 128 Posted July 22, 2015 An opinion of the 'rules' in the sport is a totally different thing to deciding who 'deserved' to win a speedway meeting. Go back and read my post, I haven't questioned your opinion on the TR rule, nor indeed have I given mine. I have simply corrected you on your incorrect and mis-informed assertion that Wolverhampton were not the 'deserving' winners of the meeting. See above I will add that most moaning about the TR rule fell for the ridiclous concept of being able to substitute in better riders in races 'just because they were losing', a far more unfair rule. Again, not saying I didn't prefer it, simply that it was more unfair. Correct! You are confusing facts and opinions. The fact is that Wolves won the match. My opinion is that a side scoring 46 points away from home deserved to win, ergo Wolves did not. That's my opinion - yours differs, but I don't accuse you of being deluded for that. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,835 Posted July 22, 2015 Indeed, if anything it's the fans who accept or like the double points tr bollox who are far more likely to be deluded In fact a better example would be the pokc sycophants, As for the double points tr bollox, Think we all get, you are still stuck in the 60's and 70's. However back in the real world the play offs will have the crowds flocking to big time speedway. Hurrah for the play offs! You are confusing facts and opinions. The fact is that Wolves won the match. My opinion is that a side scoring 46 points away from home deserved to win, ergo Wolves did not. That's my opinion - yours differs, but I don't accuse you of being deluded for that. The fact is the best team won on the day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waiheke1 4,295 Posted July 22, 2015 It has also been suggested that had the ts rule been available on Monday there would have been a bigger advantage to wolves, completely forgetting that reserves ride in protected heats. In heat 9 the only option for wolves would have been to bring in Wells, probably for Roynon. Assuming that would have resulted in an 8 point swing is possible and had Wells and Thorssell achieved it I would suggest it would be considered more deserved and fairer than giving Lindgren double. Edit Just noticed Wells was a heat leader on Monday so the only ts option would have been Musielak. Heat leaders can appear in "protected" heats as an RR, so I'm not convinced you are correct that they would not be allowed as TAC subs in such heats. Would be just like the old heat 8s. And of course even getting a 3-3 in heat 9 would be a four point swing, so a bigger gain than the 3 extra Freddie got. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdmc82 2,878 Posted July 22, 2015 Poole's main problem wasn't the TR, they were still winning after that. It was the way they collapsed in the following heats and didn't get any heat advantages and Wolves fought back strongly. It was the 3-3, 3-3, 4-2, 5-1, 3-3 that lost it for them. Wolves coped better with the pressure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Game On 1,117 Posted July 22, 2015 Poole's main problem wasn't the TR, they were still winning after that. It was the way they collapsed in the following heats and didn't get any heat advantages and Wolves fought back strongly. It was the 3-3, 3-3, 4-2, 5-1, 3-3 that lost it for them. Wolves coped better with the pressure. some would call that choking. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aces51 2,778 Posted July 22, 2015 Poole's main problem wasn't the TR, they were still winning after that. It was the way they collapsed in the following heats and didn't get any heat advantages and Wolves fought back strongly. It was the 3-3, 3-3, 4-2, 5-1, 3-3 that lost it for them. Wolves coped better with the pressure. Not for the first time, they were 10 up at Belle Vue and lost. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foreverblue 6,125 Posted July 22, 2015 Got all a bit confusing in heat 14 when Dakota North came down and Gomolski laid it down to avoid crashing in to him, they both got up and continued and North but North should have been excluded for the primary cause of the stoppage which he wasn't so that's a point North should have deducted and given to Gomolski. In fairness though they both got up and didn't try to stay down and get a re-run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 15 Posted July 22, 2015 Got all a bit confusing in heat 14 when Dakota North came down and Gomolski laid it down to avoid crashing in to him, they both got up and continued and North but North should have been excluded for the primary cause of the stoppage which he wasn't so that's a point North should have deducted and given to Gomolski. In fairness though they both got up and didn't try to stay down and get a re-run. Technically, there nothing in the rules about laying down to avoid a team mate or wiping out a team mate. It's only if you do it to an opponent. So even if a rider wipes his team mate out and both stay down, the refer should exclude both - most don't though. Equally if a rider wipes his team mate out and carries on, its the fallen rider who should be excluded. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foreverblue 6,125 Posted July 22, 2015 Technically, there nothing in the rules about laying down to avoid a team mate or wiping out a team mate. It's only if you do it to an opponent. So even if a rider wipes his team mate out and both stay down, the refer should exclude both - most don't though. Equally if a rider wipes his team mate out and carries on, its the fallen rider who should be excluded. But surely the rider that went down first is the primary cause so he should be excluded and had they stayed down that is what would of happened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 15 Posted July 22, 2015 But surely the rider that went down first is the primary cause so he should be excluded and had they stayed down that is what would of happened. No, they're both equally to blame if they sit/stand there. The rules only allow for impeding an opponent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) You are confusing facts and opinions. The fact is that Wolves won the match. My opinion is that a side scoring 46 points away from home deserved to win, ergo Wolves did not. That's my opinion - yours differs, but I don't accuse you of being deluded for that.Your opinion is irrelevant. Utterly as you are basing it on a situation where 46 points wins a meeting, it doesn't anymore. Furthermore, as I explained before, but you don't grasp/understand, hence your delusion is that sport is never a case of 'if this wasn't there, or if that hadn't of happened'. Without the tac ride, every remaining heat is different. We have no way of knowing what would have happened. As it happens, in this meeting, there were no controversial decisions, wolves scored 47, poole scored 46, hence they won, deservedly so regardless of your deluded opinion. Yes, deluded, as the only reason you are claiming it is due to the tr.... Incidentally, were you at the meeting? Edited July 22, 2015 by BWitcher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
