lucifer sam 3,960 Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) http://www.coventrybees.co/news.php?extend.3345 Abandoned after 8 heats and subsequently awarded under Rule 15.12. 32-19 after 8 races. Meaning a final score of 39-54 was still possible. Therefore it was wrong to award the result of the meeting. In 2014, Scunny were leading Sheffield 30-18 after 8 races when it was abandoned. It wasn't long before the play-off deadline, but the club took it on the chin, reached the play-offs and restaged the Sheffield meeting at the end of the season. Awarding results before Heat 10 has been completed is simply wrong. That night that Coventry called off the meeting after 8 races and yet the result was declared. I trust the fans were compensated for heat 10 having not been reached? All the best Rob Edited June 6, 2017 by lucifer sam 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falcon Hammer 576 Posted June 6, 2017 http://www.coventrybees.co/news.php?extend.3345 Coventry Storm v Rye House abandoned after 8 heats and subsequently awarded under Rule 15.12. http://www.coventrybees.co/news.php?extend.3763 & Statement from SCB http://www.speedwaygb.co/news.php?extend.29630 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waiheke1 4,295 Posted June 7, 2017 Maggie Thatcher closed our pits and industries down and now Neil Vatcher is trying to close the u,k, speedway scene down with this stupid rule he has brought to light . stop all this rubbish rule and give everyone a meeting to talk about for the right reasons .. British speedway is on it rs and now it looks like the rule guru has driven the final nail in the box ... utter cr4p . The rule itself is fine. It's the interpretation that it can be applied to the result after 10 heats rather than 15 which is the issue. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikebv 10,398 Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) When Buster Chapman took over from the Dark Lord , did he not say it was time to rip up the rulebook and start again . Seems to be more confusing than ever now .His two watch words were also "integrity" and "credibility" and how he was going to bring both to the sport... 😅 😅 😅 😅 😅 To be fair to the BSPA though, they do take their role in protecting the environment very seriously, so lets credit them for that... Hundreds of thousands more air polluting journeys would have taken place, often of hundreds of miles, if the sport was ran properly over the years so we should all thank them for that.... Edited June 7, 2017 by mikebv Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MANSE 480 Posted June 7, 2017 His two words were applied to this match and reason people stopped attending away meetings was the cost of fuel and crap away tracks like Redcar [ last couple of years as told by their own fans against Havelock ] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max the rebel 14 Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) Agreed. It sets a very dangerous precedent. Heat 10 had not been concluded. How long before a meeting is awarded that only takes place over 8 or 7 or even 6 races? You can argue that Redcar had no riders left in Heat 10. But you could also argue that five 5-1s to Redcar in Heats 11 to 15 and the final score would be 49-42. Theres a clear cut-off of 10 races. If thats not reached, then the only other way a result should be awarded is if a team could not be caught over 15 races, not 10 races. For example, if the scoreline was 45-9 after nine races, that could be awarded. Nothing was settled in the Redcar v Glasgow match. It should be re-run. All the best Rob You can't tell me u think Redcar would have got 5 5-1 can i have some of what are onAsk your self this Lawson summers and Worrall and Lunna all unbeaten up to heat 10 Ask your self this Suddenly Redcar going to stop then getting any wins in 5 heats Don't think so score would have just got bigger and bigger Right decision was made Edited June 7, 2017 by TEAM LOGAN AND ERIKA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BenR195 113 Posted June 7, 2017 You can't tell me u think Redcar would have got 5 5-1 can i have some of what are on Ask your self this Lawson summers and Worrall and Lunna all unbeaten up to heat 10 Ask your self this Suddenly Redcar going to stop then getting any wins in 5 heats Don't think so score would have just got bigger and bigger Right decision was made The rule doesn't say whether it is 'likely' that we'd of came back and won, it says 'mathematically possible', and it was still mathematically possible, so under that rule, it should of been reran, I'm not going to lie, on the night Glasgow were the better team and they deserved the win, but rules are rules and you can't go round bending them to suit 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max the rebel 14 Posted June 7, 2017 The rule doesn't say whether it is 'likely' that we'd of came back and won, it says 'mathematically possible', and it was still mathematically possible, so under that rule, it should of been reran, I'm not going to lie, on the night Glasgow were the better team and they deserved the win, but rules are rules and you can't go round bending them to suitU would have been 24-37 down after heat 10 sorry there is no way on the night Redcar bears were going to get 5 5-1's Sorry was just not going to happen They should have walked bikes round in heat 10 no noise at all then it would have been abandoned anyway Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gazc 7,205 Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) The rule doesn't say whether it is 'likely' that we'd of came back and won, it says 'mathematically possible', and it was still mathematically possible, so under that rule, it should of been reran, I'm not going to lie, on the night Glasgow were the better team and they deserved the win, but rules are rules and you can't go round bending them to suitWhat rules are we bending pray tell. We lodged an appeal with SCB and we got the decision in our favour that's it in a nutshell really. Edited June 7, 2017 by Gazc 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
erimus11 91 Posted June 7, 2017 ... and yet again he lets himself down. Jeez, can't you answer straight forward questions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BenR195 113 Posted June 7, 2017 U would have been 24-37 down after heat 10 sorry there is no way on the night Redcar bears were going to get 5 5-1's Sorry was just not going to happen They should have walked bikes round in heat 10 no noise at all then it would have been abandoned anyway Although it was unlikely we would of got 5 5-1s, it was still mathematically possible, that is all I'm saying, the rule states mathematically possible, not whether we were likely to win or not What rules are we bending pray tell. We lodged an appeal with SCB and we got the decision in or favour that's it in a nutshell really. The mathematically possible rule, although very unlikely, it was still mathematically possible for Redcar to win the meeting, so that rule was bent coz the statement said we couldn't of caught up, but like I've said, Glasgow deserved the win and if they had awarded the win on the night it wouldn't of been a problem, it's the fact that it got abandoned and vatcher said it would need to be re ran for him to change his mind 5 days later is where the problem lies Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenga 2,998 Posted June 7, 2017 mathematicaly being the key word in this debate . if it was still posable the meeting should have been re run.then just because a football team is bottom of the premier league at christmas , does not mean it will be out of the pl come the end of the season .. MATHEMATICALY .. anything is posable . i just wonder if glasgow sneak into the playoffs in 4th place by a point . will thatcher vatcher be able tosleep knowing he has boobood in his decision way back in April ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted June 7, 2017 So to summarise: A major crash happened in the rerun of ht10 The sole Redcar rider was excluded by the ref with the heat less than a lap short of being able to award the race The subsequent rerun would have had 2 Glasgow riders only Had they both suffered EF's the score would still have been 24-32 Redcar had already used their TR A meeting result can be called after ht10 where it is cut short, in this case the 10pm curfew Ht10 at the third attempt was 60 seconds from completion There is provision in the rules for exceptional circumstances which has been applied in this case. Incorrect. There is no prevision in the rules. If this interpretation is to be followed then you would have a whole raft of 'awarded' meetings. Example . Team is 14 behind after heat 7 when the heavens open.. Under this ruling the match should be awarded as it wasn't mathematically possible for them to catch up by Heat 10. Utter nonsense. The mathematically possible relates to a 15 heat meeting. The 10 heat issue is a different rule. This meeting didn't complete ten heats, so it is irrelevant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gazc 7,205 Posted June 7, 2017 Although it was unlikely we would of got 5 5-1s, it was still mathematically possible, that is all I'm saying, the rule states mathematically possible, not whether we were likely to win or not The mathematically possible rule, although very unlikely, it was still mathematically possible for Redcar to win the meeting, so that rule was bent coz the statement said we couldn't of caught up, but like I've said, Glasgow deserved the win and if they had awarded the win on the night it wouldn't of been a problem, it's the fact that it got abandoned and vatcher said it would need to be re ran for him to change his mind 5 days later is where the problem lies But there is no problem the appeal has been upheld and we have no problem with that. But you are correct Glasgow would have won the meeting on the night if it had went the distance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) The rule itself is fine. It's the interpretation that it can be applied to the result after 10 heats rather than 15 which is the issue. Exactly and it's an utter nonsense to suggest it can. Edited June 7, 2017 by BWitcher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
