cyclone 943 Posted March 29, 2016 Best solution is scrap the TR rule completely from all competitions asap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigcatdiary 3,165 Posted March 29, 2016 Best solution is scrap the TR rule completely from all competitions asap. No argument from me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted March 29, 2016 Best solution is scrap the TR rule completely from all competitions asap. Best solution is for Rye House team manager to clarify the rules before the meeting. All the best Rob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted March 29, 2016 Best solution is for Rye House team manager to clarify the rules before the meeting. All the best Rob So should every rule be clarified? Rye House have done what the rulebook says - the only reasons it's "not clear" is because Scunthorpe haven't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadders 4,135 Posted March 29, 2016 No argument from me.Or me 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Najjer 2,890 Posted March 29, 2016 Best solution is for Rye House team manager to clarify the rules before the meeting. All the best Rob What a ridiculous statement that is. Rye House seem to be the ones who have followed the rules so far. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) So should every rule be clarified? Rye House have done what the rulebook says - the only reasons it's "not clear" is because Scunthorpe haven't. I agree the rule is poorly written (or should be included in 18.2.3 rather than 18.2.4), but it's been clarified. Scunny ended up using it, but likewise Sheffield could have done, had they been 10 or more points behind. All the best Rob Edited March 29, 2016 by lucifer sam Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icicle 896 Posted March 29, 2016 The usual "muddy" rules. Will they ever learn?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigcatdiary 3,165 Posted March 29, 2016 I agree the rule is poorly written (or should be included in 18.2.3 rather than 18.2.4), but it's been clarified. Scunny ended up using it, but likewise Sheffield could have done, had they been 10 or more points behind. All the best Rob Not been clarified at all it's been ignored. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew 125 Posted March 29, 2016 Rule 18.13 A TACTICAL RIDE (TR) ride (NB. Not applicable in any PL two-legged aggregate tie). League cup group matches are not two legged ties,hence Scunthorpe were right to use the TR on Sunday.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigcatdiary 3,165 Posted March 29, 2016 Rule 18.13 A TACTICAL RIDE (TR) ride (NB. Not applicable in any PL two-legged aggregate tie). League cup group matches are not two legged ties,hence Scunthorpe were right to use the TR on Sunday.. 18.2 Premier League Cup 18.2.4 The heat format for the meetings are as per Art 18.9.1 The TR facility is not applicable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert 304 Posted March 29, 2016 Whatever the ruling... us fans deserve clarification. As a Scunny fan, it wouldn't bother me one iota if they amended our score, not like it would makes any difference to the result. Scrapping TRs altogether may be the way forward. To be told one week that its not available, then the following week told it is.... whats that all about? Hope the SCB or BSPA make some announcement before too long. As a side, has anyone seen the rule book yet?.. has it gone to print?... Or are we are going by the online version ..if so is that still in draft form? I only ask because a week or so ago I was told it hadn't gone to print. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigcatdiary 3,165 Posted March 29, 2016 Whatever the ruling... us fans deserve clarification. As a Scunny fan, it wouldn't bother me one iota if they amended our score, not like it would makes any difference to the result. Scrapping TRs altogether may be the way forward. To be told one week that its not available, then the following week told it is.... whats that all about? Hope the SCB or BSPA make some announcement before too long. As a side, has anyone seen the rule book yet?.. has it gone to print?... Or are we are going by the online version ..if so is that still in draft form? I only ask because a week or so ago I was told it hadn't gone to print. The online 2016 version has been available for a week or two from the SCB website under downloads Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RobMcCaffery 2,752 Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) Here are extracts from the online rule book relating to the PLC which clearly conflict. 18.2.4 The Heat Format for the meetings are as per Art. 18.9.1 The TR Facility is not applicable. 18.13 A TACTICAL RIDE (TR) ride (NB. Not applicable in any PL two-legged aggregate tie). - (The rest of the rule sets out eligibility and helmet colour) The bold type is used by the SCB to show additions/changes to previous versions. It looks to me that when the amendment was made to 18.2.4 was made they forgot to change the wording of 18.13 which should logically read (NB. Not applicable in any PL two-legged aggregate tie or PLC meeting). Nothing in section 18.2 differentiates between PLC group matches and play-off ties. It looks like there's a clear need for a supplementary regulation to adjust one of these. Based on what happened at the EWR clearly it's 18.2.4 that needs amending - then what happens to the Somerset result? If not then the Scunthorpe result is wrong. What a mess! Edited March 29, 2016 by rmc Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reviresco 708 Posted March 29, 2016 Why would the wording 'The TR Facility is not applicable' be moved from Article 18.2.3, which relates to the Semi-Final and Final only, in 2015 to Article 18.2.4, which relates to the whole competition, in 2016 unless the intention was not to make the TR Facility unavailable throughout the Premier League Cup this season? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
