ouch 1,191 Posted October 2, 2015 Must admit I'm taken aback by the definition some have of cheating. I've not looked it up as I didn't need to as early on in like I thought I had a handle on it by watching Wacky Races, Herbie etc. The baddies cheated but ultimately never gained an advantage, Dick Dastardly being a repeat offender. Never once at the end did I think, their not cheats just misunderstood. The innocents of youth. I do though I find it odd that many could watch this kind of thing and be rooting for the baddies. They say everyday is a learning day. I'm off to catch a pigeon. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob VDS 101 Posted October 2, 2015 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. No the best case scenario and what should have happened is that the referee spots Kyle wasn't ready to race at 2 minutes and excluded him. The race then rerun with all 4 back and Kyle off 15m. Somebody not wearing goggles is easier to spot that other issues with the bike especially as he held up the start for 60 seconds trying to fix them! Must admit I'm taken aback by the definition some have of cheating. I've not looked it up as I didn't need to as early on in like I thought I had a handle on it by watching Wacky Races, Herbie etc. The baddies cheated but ultimately never gained an advantage, Dick Dastardly being a repeat offender. Never once at the end did I think, their not cheats just misunderstood. The innocents of youth. I do though I find it odd that many could watch this kind of thing and be rooting for the baddies. They say everyday is a learning day. I'm off to catch a pigeon. I never thought of referring to wacky races silly me. I think the relevant word when it comes to cheating is intent. Did kyle intend to cheat when he made the decision to proceed with the race without the goggles? Obviously open to debate but for me he made a snap decision based on the circumstances, and it was definitely not something planned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,355 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Poole would not necessarily have won ...... you can't say that at all ..... You really do have a bad hang up about poole, don't you, every single post you've put up. Tell me, whens your next visit ? 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. Now you certainly cannot blame Matt nor Poole for that. If your club has lodged a complaint it is down to the SCB to deal with it in the way they see fit. Edited October 2, 2015 by Starman2006 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alkadera 100 Posted October 2, 2015 No the best case scenario and what should have happened is that the referee spots Kyle wasn't ready to race at 2 minutes and excluded him. The race then rerun with all 4 back and Kyle off 15m. Somebody not wearing goggles is easier to spot that other issues with the bike especially as he held up the start for 60 seconds trying to fix them! I never thought of referring to wacky races silly me. I think the relevant word when it comes to cheating is intent. Did kyle intend to cheat when he made the decision to proceed with the race without the goggles? Obviously open to debate but for me he made a snap decision based on the circumstances, and it was definitely not something planned. Once he had thrown the goggles away and rolled up to the tapes it was his intent to race without the appropriate equipment. It's not the refs job at that point to stop him is it? It was Newman's choice to do so and therefore once the race started he should have been excluded. That he wasn't is the bone of contention... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob VDS 101 Posted October 2, 2015 Once he had thrown the goggles away and rolled up to the tapes it was his intent to race without the appropriate equipment. It's not the refs job at that point to stop him is it? It was Newman's choice to do so and therefore once the race started he should have been excluded. That he wasn't is the bone of contention... Well yes I would say that it is the referee's job to stop him. Look whatever happens happens whether it's nothing or BV being crowned champions and everything inbetween. Whichever way one side is going to be treated harshly due to the referee and SCBs incompetence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alkadera 100 Posted October 2, 2015 Well yes I would say that it is the referee's job to stop him. Look whatever happens happens whether it's nothing or BV being crowned champions and everything inbetween. Whichever way one side is going to be treated harshly due to the referee and SCBs incompetence. But by going to the tapes he surely indicates he's ready to race. Isnt it the riders responsibility to be appropriately equipped at this point? Really don't know what the answer is tbh just trying to give an alternative I guess! The rest of your statement I'm in total agreement with! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisa-colette 6,035 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. However I thought the ref said there was no such rule so wouldn't have made a difference if he looked at the replay. He needed the rulebook!! Edited October 2, 2015 by lisa-colette Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Beevers 207 Posted October 2, 2015 The funny thing about all of this, is that if Sky wouldn't have covered this meeting, noone would have been none the wiser. Nobody would have cared about a rule like this in the old days. Wonder if Mauger would have brought up this rule in the 73 run off, if Scaziekiel had not put his goggles on to give him another title. Speedway is a great sport. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,191 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) I never thought of referring to wacky races silly me. I think the relevant word when it comes to cheating is intent. Did kyle intend to cheat when he made the decision to proceed with the race without the goggles? Obviously open to debate but for me he made a snap decision based on the circumstances, and it was definitely not something planned.It certainly is open to debate. I've referenced Kennett and his silencer issues. His defence was that a member of his mechanic team was the cause and this individual then "fell on his sword". It's not without it's merits that Kennett wouldn't have known about the mechanical side of things. One thing riders will be aware of is the rules pertaining to their safety kit. Whilst mechanics don't need to bother about it, it's one thing that the riders will defiantly look after. Newman got to the start and began to have trouble with his faulty goggles. He should have returned to the pits but knew this would have seen him excluded under 2 minutes and incur the disadvantage of a 15m start. Knowing the rules about his safety kit, he decided to ride anyway with an llegal set up safety wise. The lads grown up round Poole and will have seen that cheating gains you an advantage so he consciously took the decision to ride on illegally. He knew he didn't have goggles on and he knew that the rules state that to participate in the race he needed goggles on. It was no accident but a case of not so much gaining an advantage but by disregarding the rule book he dodged a disadvantage. Edited October 2, 2015 by ouch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ace no.5 169 Posted October 2, 2015 You really do have a bad hang up about poole, don't you, every single post you've put up. Tell me, whens your next visit ? Now you certainly cannot blame Matt nor Poole for that. If your club has lodged a complaint it is down to the SCB to deal with it in the way they see fit. Never once blamed Poole. I was one of the first to congratulate them. It's the SCB that stinks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisa-colette 6,035 Posted October 2, 2015 It certainly is open to debate. I've referenced Kennett and his silencer issues. His defence was that a member of his mechanic team was the cause and this individual then "fell on his sword". It's not without it's merits that Kennett wouldn't have known about the mechanical side of things. One thing riders will be aware of is the rules pertaining to their safety kit. Whilst mechanics don't need to bother about it, it's one thing that the riders will defiantly look after. Newman got to the start and began to have trouble with his faulty goggles. He should have returned to the pits but knew this would have seen him excluded under 2 minutes and incur the disadvantage of a 15m start. Knowing the rules about his safety kit, he decided to ride anyway with an llegal set up safety wise. The lads grown up round Poole and will have seen that cheating gains you an advantage so he consciously took the decision to ride on illegally. He knew he didn't have goggles on and he knew that the rules state that to participate in the race he needed goggles on. It was no accident but a case of not so much gaining an advantage but by disregarding the rule book he dodged a disadvantage. Oh please. You do not know what riders are thinking! If the ref didn't know about the rule, then how many riders do? It was a mistake most people have acknowledged that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aces51 2,778 Posted October 2, 2015 However I thought the ref said there was no such rule so wouldn't have made a difference if he looked at the replay. He needed the rulebook!! I thought the referee said to Mark Lemon that he hadn't noticed Newman had no goggles on, not that he didn't know about the rule. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob VDS 101 Posted October 2, 2015 It certainly is open to debate. I've referenced Kennett and his silencer issues. His defence was that a member of his mechanic team was the cause and this individual then "fell on his sword". It's not without it's merits that Kennett wouldn't have known about the mechanical side of things. One thing riders will be aware of is the rules pertaining to their safety kit. Whilst mechanics don't need to bother about it, it's one thing that the riders will defiantly look after. Newman got to the start and began to have trouble with his faulty goggles. He should have returned to the pits but knew this would have seen him excluded under 2 minutes and incur the disadvantage of a 15m start. Knowing the rules about his safety kit, he decided to ride anyway with an llegal set up safety wise. The lads grown up round Poole and will have seen that cheating gains you an advantage so he consciously took the decision to ride on illegally. He knew he didn't have goggles on and he knew that the rules state that to participate in the race he needed goggles on. It was no accident but a case of not so much gaining an advantage but by disregarding the rule book he dodged a disadvantage. Fair post until you got to the last paragraph. Not even going to humour the growing up around poole bit. What I will say that if he's aware that he'd have the disadvantage of going off 15m by missing the 2 minutes surely he would have been aware that he would potentially get excluded for riding without them, surely a worse penalty than going off a handicap? Can't have it both ways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
damosuzuki 696 Posted October 2, 2015 Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Newman wasn't a cheat but he was responsible for his ignorance of the rules and should have been excluded. However the referee was either unaware or incompetent. The start marshall is next to useless if he isn't required to know the rules. This needs to be addressed, and that shouldn't be difficult -otherwise you need a track start official. Would we trust some random off the street to start a race - no. I believe that Poole have fairly won in the circumstances. It isn't their fault that the ptb didn't enforce the rules. And they were worthy winners. Well done, great final. Belle Vue did fantastic. All good. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,191 Posted October 2, 2015 Fair post until you got to the last paragraph. Not even going to humour the growing up around poole bit. What I will say that if he's aware that he'd have the disadvantage of going off 15m by missing the 2 minutes surely he would have been aware that he would potentially get excluded for riding without them, surely a worse penalty than going off a handicap? Can't have it both ways. Maybe and I'm going a left field here, he raced on regardless of the rule book in the hope of getting away with it. Stranger things have happened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
