Disqualification alternative

[mc131 365]

1 hour ago, Vince said:

I disagree, we often see a rider go for a gap and the outside rider cut down. Neither are really at fault or could always do anything to avoid a collision. 

But if there is a collision somebody is at fault 

Edited August 28, 2022 by mc131

[ONTWOMINUTES 123]

49 minutes ago, iainb said:

Even your username annoys me... can't you change it to ONONEMINUTE? There's really no reason for 2 minutes, especially for restarts 

I'll see what I can do, just for you haha

[Vince 9,458]

11 hours ago, mc131 said:

But if there is a collision somebody is at fault 

I don't think so, quite often see collisions where neither rider could have done anything different and still be racing. Generally the rider on the inside clips another rider and gets excluded. But very often there was a gap there when he started the pass but the rider in front changes line slightly. 

Neither one is at fault. 

[iainb 5,017]

12 minutes ago, Vince said:

I don't think so, quite often see collisions where neither rider could have done anything different and still be racing. Generally the rider on the inside clips another rider and gets excluded. But very often there was a gap there when he started the pass but the rider in front changes line slightly. 

Neither one is at fault. 

Try telling that to your car insurance company!

[Technik 491]

At times some crashes could be declared as "A racing incident" where no fault can be decided. To call all riders back for a re-run maybe acceptable if it is the two lead riders but what if it is for 3rd & 4th place then in the re-run one of them wins. We have to accept that we make a rule & stick with it, that rule should not be adapted to suit any one of a number of possible scenarios. The scenario must fall within the rule & currently that rule calls for the primary offender to be disqualified.

My overall view is that a large percentage of spectators support the home team & only want to see all 4 re-start if it is their rider that is missing where if it should be a visitor then they are more than happy with a three rider race

[Vince 9,458]

4 hours ago, iainb said:

Try telling that to your car insurance company!

Try telling your car insurance company you wouldn't be racing if you didn't try and pass! 

Racing and road driving are vastly different things. 

[AFCB Wildcat 1,362]

On 8/28/2022 at 9:12 AM, iainb said:

Look at VAR in football... i don't think it's added anything to the game

VAR is a joke. I agree with it in principle but it was supposed to be about alerting the referee to a clear & obvious mistake that he may have made, not micro analysing every goal and using laser line graphics to show that a boot lace or strand of hair was offside. Those aren't clear & obvious mistakes. 

10 hours ago, Vince said:

I don't think so, quite often see collisions where neither rider could have done anything different and still be racing. Generally the rider on the inside clips another rider and gets excluded. But very often there was a gap there when he started the pass but the rider in front changes line slightly. 

Neither one is at fault. 

Indeed, there are many incidents where 2 riders simply arrive at the same piece of track at the same time and it's impossible to apportion blame.

My main gripe is when 2 riders are side by side down the straight with the rider inside slightly ahead and the outside rider comes down on the entry to the bend. After all the replays the commentators say "there was contact, he's clipped his wheel/leg, he has to go" before the leading rider is subsequently excluded.

Fair enough if he has left the other rider nowhere to go by moving him out to the boards but quite often the leading rider has taken a natural line into the bend and the following rider has plenty of track outside of him but is too close to his opponents back wheel which is inevitably going to swing out. 

Then you see aggressive and dangerous moves go unpunished because the victim managed to stay on the bike even though it ended his race.

[brianbuck 928]

I for one, can see no reason for changing or "bending" the existing rule, which clearly puts the emphasis on the referee to decide which rider is at fault. If eclusion were to be made optional then it would be abused and there would probably be an increase in reckless riding.

The exact same rule applies in Cycle Speedway but an increasing number of referees choose to ignore it and regularly take the easy option of calling back all four riders for a re-run - on occasions even after two or three laps of the original race have been completed - and it does crease considerably more controversy and ill-feeling.

 

[Technik 491]

The main issues with any decision is that the Referee is often in the same position within the circuit, that being at the start line so they will always get the same view ie looking at the rear of the riders entering turn 1 & the front exiting turn 4. The Referee is at a disadvantage when any incident happens on the far side of the track as the inside rider blocks the view of the outer riders. Sometimes TV cameras are on hand with multiple views & then a more involved view can be considered. But lets put this in a match with no TV just the local cameraman with a single camera, on this occasion it would not be worth looking at the playback.

In short for any move towards changing the current situation from the single match Referee to anything else will involve a lot of money & manpower. So as I suggested before you might not like one decision but the next might just favour your team.

[Trees 2,814]

On 8/28/2022 at 9:22 AM, tyretrax said:

Don't think the ref HAS to disqualify someone.

Refs should make the fair decision which includes NOT excluding anyone .....

[Trees 2,814]

12 hours ago, Technik said:

The main issues with any decision is that the Referee is often in the same position within the circuit, that being at the start line so they will always get the same view ie looking at the rear of the riders entering turn 1 & the front exiting turn 4. The Referee is at a disadvantage when any incident happens on the far side of the track as the inside rider blocks the view of the outer riders. Sometimes TV cameras are on hand with multiple views & then a more involved view can be considered. But lets put this in a match with no TV just the local cameraman with a single camera, on this occasion it would not be worth looking at the playback.

In short for any move towards changing the current situation from the single match Referee to anything else will involve a lot of money & manpower. So as I suggested before you might not like one decision but the next might just favour your team.

I think there should be a ref's assistant stationed on the apex of both bends too.

[Technik 491]

3 hours ago, Trees said:

Refs should make the fair decision which includes NOT excluding anyone .....

A racing incident would be the obvious answer. But as I have stated before a lot depends on the riders involved teams home or away it's a catch 22 situation if the race is stopped & sometimes we need to look at not who is to blame for the incident but why the race was stopped. We have all heard a rider after an exclusion crying foul that "He had nowhere to go" in this case I often think so why did you continue to try & go there!

3 hours ago, Trees said:

I think there should be a ref's assistant stationed on the apex of both bends too.

This has been mentioned many times but comes down to manpower & money. it's hard enough to find people who want to be Referees but to find linesmen or assistants would be even harder. They would need to be independent & paid for their duties also they would have to be placed in a position with an unobstructed view & where they cannot be influenced by supporters or competitors.

[AFCB Wildcat 1,362]

The trouble is, no matter how many officials you have or how many angles you view it from, in some situations it's purely subjective when apportioning blame. 

What are people's objections to a staggered restart if a referee called it as a racing incident? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. It shouldn't take any more time than the current system and I would have thought it fairer than an exclusion based on a toss of a coin when the referee isn't sure.

In the current system, how often do we see a rider who was tailed off in the initial race pop out of the start in the re run? At least it would negate that.

[MARK246 243]

4 hours ago, Trees said:

I think there should be a ref's assistant stationed on the apex of both bends too.

More unpaid, unbiased club volunteers, or real paid licenced officials the promoters need to pay. no chance of either

[Trees 2,814]

6 hours ago, MARK246 said:

More unpaid, unbiased club volunteers, or real paid licenced officials the promoters need to pay. no chance of either

Licensed officials of course ....