mickthemuppet 976 Posted October 2, 2015 Speedway is odd. It's the only sport you can "cheat" or "break rules" and STILL gain. As we have all said, had Newman been excluded thats 2 less for Poole and 2 more for BV. But even if the SCB find he did break the rules, it's 2 less for Poole. So Poole still gain 2 points from "breaking the rules". How the hell is that fair? It basically says, "cheat, if we miss it and take points away later you have still gained". In any serious sport you'd have the points removed, all riders would have positions increased AND you'd be punished for cheating in some way - depending on the severity it'd be anything from a few race points deduced to a few match points deducted. Please note people, I'm talking generally. Not just this case here. In non professional tennis 50% at least foot fault and without a umpire or referee there is nothing you can do about it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,191 Posted October 2, 2015 The difference being of course is that had the officials been aware of Kennett and Lamberts illegal equipment I assume they would have been barred from riding and therefore have no chance of earning points. In addition you could claim that these two cases they were clearly getting an advantage through their illegal set up. Had the officials been aware of the lack of goggles they would have sent kyle back to the pits and he would have missed the 2 mins and been off 15m therefore still having the chance to win points. You can't compare those situations. They could have informed Lambert his deflector was missing/faulty and he could have returned to the pits to rectify the problem, at the same time incurring a 2 minute disqualification. Unfortunately it got missed by the officials until after the race finished and his points were subsequently removed. You can substitute Lambert and deflector with Newman and goggles in the above as both fit the scenario. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob VDS 101 Posted October 2, 2015 They could have informed Lambert his deflector was missing/faulty and he could have returned to the pits to rectify the problem, at the same time incurring a 2 minute disqualification. Unfortunately it got missed by the officials until after the race finished and his points were subsequently removed. You can substitute Lambert and deflector with Newman and goggles in the above as both fit the scenario. Except one instance is cheating to get a clear advantage and the other isn't! Going round in circles now so let's see what happens 👍 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,191 Posted October 2, 2015 Just putting to one side the start line/15m aspect I'll ask again is it ok to break the rules/cheat in sport if an advantage has not been achieved? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob VDS 101 Posted October 2, 2015 Just putting to one side the start line/15m aspect I'll ask again is it ok to break the rules/cheat in sport if an advantage has not been achieved? And as I said earlier is that actually cheating? By definition cheating means getting an advantage through foul means. Breaking the rules is different as this can more often than not be unintentional and done without realising. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted October 2, 2015 And as I said earlier is that actually cheating? By definition cheating means getting an advantage through foul means. Breaking the rules is different as this can more often than not be unintentional and done without realising. But Lambert dirt deflector wasn't intentional. Check out heats 13 and 15 of this meeting.... http://speedwayupdates.proboards.com/thread/14867/coventry-kings-lynn-nl-2pm excluded for no heat shield and no rear wheel disc/spoiler. Neither gain you an advantage but are for health and safety. What is the difference? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,191 Posted October 2, 2015 And as I said earlier is that actually cheating? By definition cheating means getting an advantage through foul means. Breaking the rules is different as this can more often than not be unintentional and done without realising. So your intention is to cheat but if you then fail to gain an advantage it is no longer cheating? Whilst I'm at it if a tree falls in the woods whilst nobody is about, does it make a noise? By using the phrase more often than not would you therefore admit breaking the rules can also be carried out intentionally? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob VDS 101 Posted October 2, 2015 But Lambert dirt deflector wasn't intentional. Check out heats 13 and 15 of this meeting.... http://speedwayupdates.proboards.com/thread/14867/coventry-kings-lynn-nl-2pm excluded for no heat shield and no rear wheel disc/spoiler. Neither gain you an advantage but are for health and safety. What is the difference? They didn't take place in an EL final? Lol I don't know mate. Just trying to ascertain what would be a realistic outcome to all this sh*t Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ace no.5 169 Posted October 2, 2015 The only outcome is that the SCB will do naff all which is just plain wrong. I'm not saying anything should be done now but it just really irks me that nothing was done before the 2nd leg. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martinhw 21 Posted October 2, 2015 Robert Lambert rode without a dirt deflector and got noticed after the race he was deducted his points. Surely if the ref was told before Newmans race the least he could have done was to look at the footage after the race and then exclude him,or is that too simple. Referee totally at fault in my book. The problem is Newman didn't suck it up and start 15m back. He instead choose to ride with illegal kit. One of the last riders to do that was Kennett with his silencer or Lambert with his dirt deflector and both had their race points deducted. They could have informed Lambert his deflector was missing/faulty and he could have returned to the pits to rectify the problem, at the same time incurring a 2 minute disqualification. Unfortunately it got missed by the officials until after the race finished and his points were subsequently removed. You can substitute Lambert and deflector with Newman and goggles in the above as both fit the scenario. There does seem to be a precedent here. The SCB have surely dug themselves into a hole by failing to adjudicate promptly on this issue. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted October 2, 2015 Yet more rumours on facebook of riders being tested for dodgy fuel. The name mentioned isn't the one thats been mentioned on this thread though! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alan_Jones 1,005 Posted October 2, 2015 Can anyone come up with a fair retrospective penalty for this situation? Taking into account that all 4 riders would have been involved albeit one off 15 metres? What can the SCB do? My own view is that a fine for Newman and a change to the rulebook is pretty much all they can do. You keep on about a penalty having to take into account the possible result of the race - it doesn't! If an infraction is seen during or immediately after the race the result is given with that rider removed, if it's the result of an after meeting appeal then that riders points are removed. It's really very simple. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob VDS 101 Posted October 2, 2015 You keep on about a penalty having to take into account the possible result of the race - it doesn't! If an infraction is seen during or immediately after the race the result is given with that rider removed, if it's the result of an after meeting appeal then that riders points are removed. It's really very simple. So basically in this case it is in BVs best interest to appeal after the meeting rather than it being identified at the time? Had the ref spotted it we'd have had a race with 4 riders. But by appealing after the event then the Poole rider is deemed not to have been in the race? Not saying you're wrong but doesn't seem very fair to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aces51 2,778 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) If the referee failed to spot it before the start of the race but then saw it during the race Newman would have been disqualified and his points discounted. It wouldn't have been restarted with him on 15m. According to Mark Lemon he spoke to the referee after the heat. That is when the referee should have looked at a replay. Edited October 2, 2015 by Aces51 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alan_Jones 1,005 Posted October 2, 2015 So basically in this case it is in BVs best interest to appeal after the meeting rather than it being identified at the time? Had the ref spotted it we'd have had a race with 4 riders. But by appealing after the event then the Poole rider is deemed not to have been in the race? Not saying you're wrong but doesn't seem very fair to me. The best case scenario would have been an exclusion after the race, as with a missing dirt deflector/chain guard, giving a 4 point swing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
