Belle Vue v Ipswich Play off semi 2nd leg 3 Oct

[Grachan 7,364]

1 minute ago, Rob B said:

Was the rule written the same way then? I don't have a copy of 2017 rule book but know the rule was rewrittten this year to include the 25% to 75% window with 2 transfers except for long term injury.

That's not the rule that causes the issue.

The rule is 010.3.1, which, for some reason, no Belle Vue supporter seems to want to take any notice of despite it being quoted on this forum when Rob was first refused permission.

The rule reads: "No team changes will be allowed after 28th August with the effective date being 31st August. Except riders returning to the team after injury who must re-take their position, dictated by their MA, with their replacement being released."

Personally, I'd rather be watching Rob Lambert racing tonight, and in terms of who wins I'm completely neutral. But if you want to look at rules, you need to include that one too, which gives no mention of long-term injuries.

[bellevueace 917]

We have seen in the past Poole bringing in Hancock and Wolves bringing in Woffinden, now we bring in Lambert, forgetting how the rules were written seasons ago these moves did not break any rules but the one thing i dont really agree with is riders who dont commit fully to British speedway using us as a couple of extra paydays when the overseas commitments have ended, You can have nothing but admiration for Doyles continued commitment to the sport here.

[The Cheese 2,026]

Not sure what to make of this. If the rules don't allow for changes to be made at this point then there shouldn't really be any "in the best interests" exceptions. On the other hand it's good to see Lambert back (even if only for a few meetings) and it's preferable for a club to have a signing rather than guests. 

[TTT 1,271]

So BV can make up a new set of rules as they go along. 

No wonder the sport is on it's final knockings in this country.

[SPD444 112]

31 minutes ago, Grachan said:

That's not the rule that causes the issue.

The rule is 010.3.1, which, for some reason, no Belle Vue supporter seems to want to take any notice of despite it being quoted on this forum when Rob was first refused permission.

The rule reads: "No team changes will be allowed after 28th August with the effective date being 31st August. Except riders returning to the team after injury who must re-take their position, dictated by their MA, with their replacement being released."

Personally, I'd rather be watching Rob Lambert racing tonight, and in terms of who wins I'm completely neutral. But if you want to look at rules, you need to include that one too, which gives no mention of long-term injuries.

So, for completeness, could you show the long-term injury rule please. The rule you have shown only covers riders returning from injury and am interested to find which rule it would have been for BV to appeal against. 

[TTT 1,271]

BV to win the league @ 4/7 with bet365 is a gift for anyone who wants to put money on it.

I'll be hammering this line as it's the biggest certainty since backing Ukraine to win the Eurovision Song Contest.

Edited October 3, 2022 by TTT

[ouch 1,199]

31 minutes ago, Grachan said:

That's not the rule that causes the issue.

The rule is 010.3.1, which, for some reason, no Belle Vue supporter seems to want to take any notice of despite it being quoted on this forum when Rob was first refused permission.

The rule reads: "No team changes will be allowed after 28th August with the effective date being 31st August. Except riders returning to the team after injury who must re-take their position, dictated by their MA, with their replacement being released."

Personally, I'd rather be watching Rob Lambert racing tonight, and in terms of who wins I'm completely neutral. But if you want to look at rules, you need to include that one too, which gives no mention of long-term injuries.

But you cannot ignore the newer rule either, in fact the newer rule should take precedence over the old one, which shouldn’t have been left in. 
If you apply both rules then you have two cut off dates for changes. Ipswich hit the deadline 07/08/2022 but if they wanted to make a change they could say they will use the old rule and have until the 28/08/2022. Sheffield hit theirs 31/08/2022 so they would prefer to use the new rule to get some extra days should they need it. There is no reason for the old rule to be there, as I’ve mentioned before it impacted teams with long term injury issues when all it need to do was address ringers. The fact the new rule did this and evened out the playing field for when teams could change up to (75%) was perfect. Unfortunately they forgot to remove the old rule. Just to be clear to the usual suspects, no rules have been hastily rewritten, no brown envelopes have changed hands (a refreshing change after all these years) and nothing has been done with the dreaded best interests of speedway that the in crowd often use. It’s purely a desire to see the rules adhered to and the usual BSPL antics pushed to one side. 

[screm 8,069]

Its great news for Belle Vue that they have signed Lambert, but allowing it is just plain wrong. The BSPL have a set of rules, they need to stick to them.

[old bob at herne bay 828]

Let’s not clutch at straws here, Belle Vue have well and truly smashed the transfer window rule to smithereens. 
Lambert is riding contrary to the regulations.

Ipswich should ride under protest, and not be afraid to explain why in front of the TV cameras.

 

[Grachan 7,364]

9 minutes ago, SPD444 said:

So, for completeness, could you show the long-term injury rule please. The rule you have shown only covers riders returning from injury and am interested to find which rule it would have been for BV to appeal against. 

 

It is rule 012.2

"A Premiership Transfer Window opens after 25% of the League fixtures are complete and closes when 75% of League fixtures are complete. This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury."

It seems pretty clear that the SPIRIT of these two rules is that there are no transfers outside the transfer window except for long-term injury replacements, and none at all after 28 August. This was clearly their intention when they refused Belle Vue permission to use Lambert.

Of course, there was enough ambiguity in these two rules when put together for any half-decent lawyer (or even fan for that matter!) to find a loophole. If that was their intention, then it should have been stated clearly in BOTH rules what they meant.

[NSS1 41]

5 minutes ago, old bob at herne bay said:

Let’s not clutch at straws here, Belle Vue have well and truly smashed the transfer window rule to smithereens. 
Lambert is riding contrary to the regulations.

Ipswich should ride under protest, and not be afraid to explain why in front of the TV cameras.

 

oh dear box of Kleenex any good to you 

[Grachan 7,364]

6 minutes ago, ouch said:

But you cannot ignore the newer rule either, in fact the newer rule should take precedence over the old one, which shouldn’t have been left in. 
If you apply both rules then you have two cut off dates for changes. Ipswich hit the deadline 07/08/2022 but if they wanted to make a change they could say they will use the old rule and have until the 28/08/2022. Sheffield hit theirs 31/08/2022 so they would prefer to use the new rule to get some extra days should they need it. There is no reason for the old rule to be there, as I’ve mentioned before it impacted teams with long term injury issues when all it need to do was address ringers. The fact the new rule did this and evened out the playing field for when teams could change up to (75%) was perfect. Unfortunately they forgot to remove the old rule. Just to be clear to the usual suspects, no rules have been hastily rewritten, no brown envelopes have changed hands (a refreshing change after all these years) and nothing has been done with the dreaded best interests of speedway that the in crowd often use. It’s purely a desire to see the rules adhered to and the usual BSPL antics pushed to one side. 

 

Actually, I've just realised that if you read rule 12.2 as it is written, the transfer window doesn't actually allow any transfers at all for proven long-term injury. "This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury."

Sheffield and Wolves should get a lawyer onto that one!

[NSS1 41]

think we can class Lemmo now with Middleditch & Adams has pulling master strokes in getting class riders in play/offs  jumped up  in my estimation 

[NSS1 41]

2 minutes ago, Grachan said:

 

Actually, I've just realised that if you read rule 12.2 as it is written, the transfer window doesn't actually allow any transfers at all for proven long-term injury. "This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury."

Sheffield and Wolves should get a lawyer onto that one!

obviously does't hence Lambert riding 

[lucifer sam 3,960]

1 hour ago, Rob B said:

Was the rule written the same way then? I don't have a copy of 2017 rule book but know the rule was rewrittten this year to include the 25% to 75% window with 2 transfers except for long term injury.

I think the ruling regarding the transfer deadline is worded almost exactly the same. It's been about for years, the only bit that has changed is the date. At one point it was mid-September, now it's the end of August. It's the only relevant rule that applies in such cases.

Making more than 2 changes because of long-term injury between 25% to 75% makes no odds now - we're no longer in that window!