orion 7,615 Posted June 28, 2017 As I said if the doctor said no then fine, they are the experts. Not really a question of saying yes or no based on one person ...no doubt research has been done on the subject hence why guidelines have been set ..rather that asking a rider if he's ok and or ask him how many fingers the doctors holding up . If 8 or 9 days is the rule then it should be stuck too . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beowulf 1,513 Posted June 28, 2017 I started going in 69 and the reserve format 6/7/6/7' race was there then, v Halifax at home Boocock beat Briggs in heat 1 and again in the Silver Sash that stuck in my mind not many beat Briggo at the Abbey then. Yes, but the 'team' may have been 1-6, with just the no 7 being reserve. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Perton Wolf 396 Posted June 28, 2017 As I said if the doctor said no then fine, they are the experts. You can get a different opinion from one doctor to the next though. A blanket ban on riding after a concussion is definitely the right rule, the question is what the duration should be. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted June 28, 2017 I agree that the rules should be followed as it would set a bad precedent if it were overruled - no exceptions! Ironically though he was injured while riding for his Championship side and the only option open to Swindon is R/R - so Swindon suffer as a result whilst Berwick can have a guest for him - doesn't seem fair! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReadingRacer2017 159 Posted June 28, 2017 Hi all I'm new to this forum so be gentle. Just moved to the Swindon area from Reading, just started going to speedway again at the Abbey since the demise of Smallmead. My first impressions from this season, apart from Doyle and Morris who are always going to get 10+ a meeting, young Zach has impressed me (great style). My prediction for tomorrow Swindon 43-47 Wolves (And that's being generous to Ellis and Wilson-Dean) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,821 Posted June 28, 2017 A lot would depend on who decided 9 days out for concussion, if it was a few of the bspa then it is questionable, if a concussion specialist then it should be the period specified. Apparently Nick has been seen by a doctor so the decision should be up to the doctor if he feels Nick is ok to ride. It does seem daft about not being able to bring in a second guest if the manager chooses. As far as I'm aware it's the ruling from the highest order as it's applicable to all countries, leagues and competitions. Assuming that's FIM directive and agreed by all. It's not really up for discussion I'd imagine! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A ORLOV 8,628 Posted June 28, 2017 As far as I'm aware it's the ruling from the highest order as it's applicable to all countries, leagues and competitions. Assuming that's FIM directive and agreed by all. It's not really up for discussion I'd imagine! Well that is fine then, which is all I was pointing out. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnboy 2 Posted June 28, 2017 Riders safety is paramount Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waiheke1 4,295 Posted June 29, 2017 Yes, but the 'team' may have been 1-6, with just the no 7 being reserve.1969 was when the "classic" BL format came in, so at latest it was 69 when 2 reserves startedI have to agree with Rosco on this, it's a joke that you can't have a guest for an injured rider because they are in positions 2-5 yet wolves who have a double up rider can bring in King & Starke at reserve for their injured rider. Nick is key to our side & without him we weakened massively. I don't blame Nick or Swindon in trying to have him passed fit although I can't see the bspa allowing it.People have whinged and whinged on here about too many guests, yet when the bspa do something about it people still whinge... fwiw I would allow choice of facility for hl only and no facility 4-7 other than replaced by a number 8 or NL rider, but the bspa rule this season actually makes sense imo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RobMcCaffery 2,752 Posted June 29, 2017 The two reserve system was introduced in 1969, replacing the old system of one reserve and a 'supplementary reserve' chosen from one of the second strings and used in case of injuries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy robin 2,963 Posted June 29, 2017 Is this one of those meetings that is more meaningful because Swindon won't finish top but might still be able to finish in the top 4? Swindon lost any chance of a top 4 spot the minute they were stitched up by Tungate & didn't look for another rider. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattK 3,447 Posted June 29, 2017 I agree that the rules should be followed as it would set a bad precedent if it were overruled - no exceptions! Ironically though he was injured while riding for his Championship side and the only option open to Swindon is R/R - so Swindon suffer as a result whilst Berwick can have a guest for him - doesn't seem fair! Someone should arrange a meeting, maybe on an annual basis, where promoters can come together and agree the rules for the upcoming season. That would surely stop individuals feeling as if they are being victimised by unfavourable rules. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pirate Baz 218 Posted June 29, 2017 The two reserve system was introduced in 1969, replacing the old system of one reserve and a 'supplementary reserve' chosen from one of the second strings and used in case of injuries. Don't think he was 'chosen' Rob. I believe he was the second lowest average after the reserve. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hagonshocker 1,956 Posted June 29, 2017 Today's Premiership section in the Star seems to suggest Swindon have nothing lined up in any way to strengthen this side? 'See what comes up' badically which when you consider how far we are in terms of points and strength off the top 4 does suggest we are giving up a bit on the playoffs which financially is a bit dangerous Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattK 3,447 Posted June 29, 2017 There isn't exactly an option which jumps out, so I think it makes sense to wait - especially if Jason is going to be missed for a while. It will also be interesting to see how Gappmaier goes in the team, as for me he has the most potential out of our bottom four. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
