Heat 15, Who Can Replace A Rider Who Breaks The Tapes?

[acclennell 141]

Why is an amendment/supplementary rule required for a misinterpretation? This is by more than one referee as I have pointed out.

And both referees were wrong do you really think that the SCB are going to totally change a rule mid season just because George complained. The rule has been amended in clear speak to ensure no misinterpratation but the point is that the rule was misinterprated in the two meetings you mention and to be fair in the Berwick match earlier in the season. They have not 'changed' the rule they have amended the rule in better terms to ensure that the rule is not incorrectly adhered to in future. Well done George for ensuring clarity is brought to the table and to be fair most people were unsure what the rule meant and I for one was dumbfounded when I heard Summers was being brought in as a replacement for an excluded rider.

Edited June 2, 2016 by acclennell

[HenryW 1,178]

Let's get this right. The rule wasn't misinterpreted, it was written wrong.

 

There was no other way to interpret what was originally written than how it was implemented at Glasgow and Wolverhampton.

 

What was intended was irrelevant at that point. The rules as written were followed.

 

They have now corrected the rule to be what they apparently originally intended but failed to write.

[waiheke1 4,295]

The question is, how do they manage to write so many rules so badly?

[acclennell 141]

Let's get this right. The rule wasn't misinterpreted, it was written wrong.

 

There was no other way to interpret what was originally written than how it was implemented at Glasgow and Wolverhampton.

 

What was intended was irrelevant at that point. The rules as written were followed.

 

They have now corrected the rule to be what they apparently originally intended but failed to write.

Disagree the rule was misinterperated as the correct rule was not followed. Yes I agee it has been amended to avoid any ambiguity but it doesn't alter the fact that there should not have been a rider replacement for the exclusion apart from a reserve. What I will say is why are referees not briefed in the rules before the start of the season (and if they are then something is obviously wrong) and also why this has took so long to be clarified as George had highlighted this earlier in the seson. Obviously George knew exactly what the rule implied so why did the other promotions not as surely the rules are agreed at the promotors meetings before the season starts?

[racers and royals 8,789]

There has been another supplementary regulation issued

18.10(D)

The eligibility of a Guest for an absent #7 is:
A rider who was eligible to ride in that position at the start of the season and whose average is the
same or lower than that of the absent rider.
Issued: Monday 23rd May 2016

[Daniel Smith 5,706]

There has been another supplementary regulation issued

18.10(D)

The eligibility of a Guest for an absent #7 is:

A rider who was eligible to ride in that position at the start of the season and whose average is the

same or lower than that of the absent rider.

Issued: Monday 23rd May 2016

 

 

 

Which rightly stops the pathetic use of rider's like Stuart Robson etc for EDR's. Common sense

[Alan_Jones 1,005]

 

 

Which rightly stops the pathetic use of rider's like Stuart Robson etc for EDR's. Common sense

 

It doesn't, it only applies to the PL but asks more questions than it answers there because the #7 isn't necessarily the original 3pt #7.

[Daniel Smith 5,706]

 

It doesn't, it only applies to the PL but asks more questions than it answers there because the #7 isn't necessarily the original 3pt #7.

 

Which has been SCB's argument too but I think the rules are written in that as per start of the season. So EDR's will always be #6 & #7 in terms of the rules even if they're in the 1-5.

If that makes sense?

Does to me anyway

[Alan_Jones 1,005]

 

Which has been SCB's argument too but I think the rules are written in that as per start of the season. So EDR's will always be #6 & #7 in terms of the rules even if they're in the 1-5.

If that makes sense?

Does to me anyway

 

EDRs are always EDRs wherever they line up in the team but #6 & #7, in terms of team line up, are the two lowest riders by MA with the proviso that only an EDR can be at #7.

[bruno 1,797]

Please tell me I'm wrong,does this mean that if a rider touches the tapes in heat 15 he can go off 15 metres from his original gate position but if a rider touches the tapes in heats 1 to 14 he can go off 15 metres but has to go from gate 4. If that's right isn't it a contradiction. Or better still isn't it just bonkers, that's the same offence with 2 rules. Is it me, I hope it is

[arnieg 3,713]

Please tell me I'm wrong,does this mean that if a rider touches the tapes in heat 15 he can go off 15 metres from his original gate position but if a rider touches the tapes in heats 1 to 14 he can go off 15 metres but has to go from gate 4. If that's right isn't it a contradiction. Or better still isn't it just bonkers, that's the same offence with 2 rules. Is it me, I hope it is

No, I think we are all a bit bemused.

 

But it is intentional. Apparently the expectation is that the requirement to go off gate 4 when on a 15 metre handicap in heats 1 to 14 will probably be removed from the rulebook next winter.

[bruno 1,797]

ah another change to the rules, what a surprise