iainb 5,093 Posted October 29, 2022 (edited) 9 hours ago, Chris116 said: Did the referee not have a copy of the rule book or did the referee fail to read the rule book? The team managers also appear not to know the rule book as well as they should and even if you can't remember all the rules knowing where things are in the rule book and having the ability to actually read the relevant sections should be a minimum qualification for the job. Heads should roll or at the very least some urgent re-training is required. All they needed was a programme, the rules were printed in there weren't they? People were quoting them on here. Edited October 29, 2022 by iainb 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris116 756 Posted October 29, 2022 9 hours ago, Gambo said: You can check out the Rule book yourself on the SCB Website, to see that the Referee complied with them to the letter! If the referee complied with the rules to the letter why did the BSPL issue the statement the following day altering the result? Did the referee get it wrong or has the BSPL moved the goal posts in the 24 hours after the meeting? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gambo 1,341 Posted October 29, 2022 2 hours ago, Chris116 said: If the referee complied with the rules to the letter why did the BSPL issue the statement the following day altering the result? Did the referee get it wrong or has the BSPL moved the goal posts in the 24 hours after the meeting? As I said, the Referee followed the rules, as they stood at the time, to the letter! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris116 756 Posted October 29, 2022 2 minutes ago, Gambo said: As I said, the Referee followed the rules, as they stood at the time, to the letter! So you are saying that the rules were changed after the event! Having looked at the rules on the SCB site as well as those quoted on this thread I can't find any changes so how can you claim the referee followed the rules correctly? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gambo 1,341 Posted October 29, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Chris116 said: So you are saying that the rules were changed after the event! Having looked at the rules on the SCB site as well as those quoted on this thread I can't find any changes so how can you claim the referee followed the rules correctly? To return the question to you, where/what is the rule that the referee did not follow. And if there was a part that he did not follow, why did the Team managers not point that out to him? Edited October 29, 2022 by Gambo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris116 756 Posted October 29, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Gambo said: To return the question to you, where/what is the rule that the referee did not follow. And if there was a part that he did not follow, why did the Team managers not point that out to him? Read what the BSPL statement says. The SCB would like to apologise to the Wolverhampton Team at the Premiership Pairs Round 5 at Belle Vue on Thursday 27th October where an error was made in the calcification of the results for the semi finals, where on the countback system Wolverhampton should have qualified for the race off. Three teams tied on 20 points however the SCB Regulations quite clearly states as per SCB Regulation 016.1.3 - "If more than a two way tie the team with the highest scoring heat results will qualify" Under this regulation between the three tied teams Wolverhampton, Peterborough and Sheffield, this meant Sheffield finshed in 5th position having not scored any 6 - 3 results in their favour, where as both Wolverhampton and Peterborough had one race each with a 6-3 advantage. Wolverhampton and Peterborough also had one race each of a 5-4 advantage. Thereafter Wolverhampton had one race with a score of 4-5 where as Peterborough other three races were all scores of 3-6, meaning that Wolverhampton should have qualified with a higher scoring heat results. So the 5th round positions will be adjusted to the following - 1st Belle Vue 2nd Ipswich 3rd Wolverhampton 4th Peterborough 5th Sheffield They say the rules were not followed and from my reading of the rules, I have to agree with the BSPL on this occasion. Edited October 29, 2022 by Chris116 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col 861 Posted October 29, 2022 And what would they have done had Harris not crashed out of the semi, which would have seen the Panthers in the final? Adjust the scores with Wolves going ahead of the Witches? Order the whole meeting restaged? Restage the semi & final? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
False dawn 2,307 Posted October 29, 2022 2 hours ago, Col said: And what would they have done had Harris not crashed out of the semi, which would have seen the Panthers in the final? They'd have said he was guesting for Wolverhampton. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikebv 10,343 Posted October 29, 2022 6 hours ago, Chris116 said: Read what the BSPL statement says. The SCB would like to apologise to the Wolverhampton Team at the Premiership Pairs Round 5 at Belle Vue on Thursday 27th October where an error was made in the calcification of the results for the semi finals, where on the countback system Wolverhampton should have qualified for the race off. Three teams tied on 20 points however the SCB Regulations quite clearly states as per SCB Regulation 016.1.3 - "If more than a two way tie the team with the highest scoring heat results will qualify" Under this regulation between the three tied teams Wolverhampton, Peterborough and Sheffield, this meant Sheffield finshed in 5th position having not scored any 6 - 3 results in their favour, where as both Wolverhampton and Peterborough had one race each with a 6-3 advantage. Wolverhampton and Peterborough also had one race each of a 5-4 advantage. Thereafter Wolverhampton had one race with a score of 4-5 where as Peterborough other three races were all scores of 3-6, meaning that Wolverhampton should have qualified with a higher scoring heat results. To be fair to the ref... They probably thought that working all that out would have taken till Friday lunchtime... "Anyone got a box and 3 pieces of paper?"... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
False dawn 2,307 Posted October 29, 2022 1 hour ago, mikebv said: To be fair to the ref... They probably thought that working all that out would have taken till Friday lunchtime... "Anyone got a box and 3 pieces of paper?"... Someone did say, let's get a random number generator, adjust for the teams and riders in alphabetical order and take into account league position (not counting the play-offs of course). Then the ref said, "where's the cardboard box?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2ndbendbeerhut 1,781 Posted October 30, 2022 https://ipswichwitches.co/raceday-preview-premiership-pairs-round-6/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arthur54 1,319 Posted October 30, 2022 47 minutes ago, 2ndbendbeerhut said: https://ipswichwitches.co/raceday-preview-premiership-pairs-round-6/ Howarth back off his honeymoon then Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigerman 2 Posted October 30, 2022 Tomorrow's meeting has been postponed. Where do they go from here? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nw42 2,053 Posted October 30, 2022 19 minutes ago, tigerman said: Tomorrow's meeting has been postponed. Where do they go from here? Back to the NSS would be the ideal answer but I doubt it will happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trees 2,814 Posted October 30, 2022 36 minutes ago, nw42 said: Back to the NSS would be the ideal answer but I doubt it will happen. Lynn ;D I wish .... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
