Call me wolfie 677 Posted September 21, 2023 12 minutes ago, orion said: Why would they be worried that's he rides on the Monday? Surely there season ends on Sunday Sorry assumed there would be 2 legs, if it's purely up to him I imagine he'll give it a go. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roger Jacobs 554 Posted September 21, 2023 3 hours ago, Call me wolfie said: Just feel a little sad that it's become all about bending and twisting the rules and finding loopholes etc especially as it had such a profound effect on the outcome of the playoffs. No one knew what the effect of the Lambert signing would have on the play-offs. BV hoped he would be a good replacement, but they couldn't guarantee that. Sheffield hoped Jack Holder would ride like a #1, but he failed miserably at BV. Sheffield fans quickly forgot about that when whinging about Fricke's performance at Ipswich Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LoweRacing143 17 Posted September 21, 2023 5 minutes ago, Call me wolfie said: Sorry assumed there would be 2 legs, if it's purely up to him I imagine he'll give it a go. Yeah bud Sunday is their last meeting of the season so with a bit of lucky woffy will be back Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roger Jacobs 554 Posted September 21, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, stevebrum said: But replaced him AFTER the cut off and only ever been allowed to happen once in the history of play offs. But after the cut off date to replace a rider, again only ever permitted one year in play off history. Exactly this, spot on. I will never disagree with any of the interpretation and general hot air surrounding what happened, but the point is that the Regulation existed, so it was used (and not just by BV). There have been other examples of stupid Regulations in Play-Off history which have resulted in either removal of said Regulations, or re-writing/re-interpretation, e.g. Tactical Joker, and eventually T/S, and of course the use of one guest - which is still sufficiently vague to cause dispute. They never learn. Edited September 21, 2023 by Roger Jacobs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SUPERACE 440 Posted September 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Call me wolfie said: 2 meetings in 2 days may be too much for him, plus will Wroclaw let him ride? It will be a bumper crowd at Monmore if he does. There season ends Sunday so won't be bothered. Also great he's back but is really fit enough? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Call me wolfie 677 Posted September 21, 2023 23 minutes ago, SUPERACE said: There season ends Sunday so won't be bothered. Also great he's back but is really fit enough? I guess we’ll find out on Monday Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Call me wolfie 677 Posted September 21, 2023 1 hour ago, LoweRacing143 said: Yeah bud Sunday is their last meeting of the season so with a bit of lucky woffy will be back Would make it 2 cracking meetings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DazS 430 Posted September 21, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Call me wolfie said: I guess we’ll find out on Monday you will find out on .Sunday Edited September 21, 2023 by DazS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Call me wolfie 677 Posted September 21, 2023 11 minutes ago, DazS said: you will find out on .Sunday True Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
szkocjasid 3,029 Posted September 21, 2023 The fact that people still argue / disagree about Lambert signing for Belle Vue one year later, shows just how poorly the rule was written. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,821 Posted September 21, 2023 5 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said: I will never disagree with any of the interpretation and general hot air surrounding what happened, but the point is that the Regulation existed, so it was used (and not just by BV). There have been other examples of stupid Regulations in Play-Off history which have resulted in either removal of said Regulations, or re-writing/re-interpretation, e.g. Tactical Joker, and eventually T/S, and of course the use of one guest - which is still sufficiently vague to cause dispute. They never learn. Yes absolutely. The rule existed (or added to the 2022 rules) bizarrely and as usual completely cocked it up. As they always do. Make the rules clear and unambiguous. It should never be allowed to interpreted in any other way. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,191 Posted September 22, 2023 18 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said: I will never disagree with any of the interpretation and general hot air surrounding what happened, but the point is that the Regulation existed, so it was used (and not just by BV). There have been other examples of stupid Regulations in Play-Off history which have resulted in either removal of said Regulations, or re-writing/re-interpretation, e.g. Tactical Joker, and eventually T/S, and of course the use of one guest - which is still sufficiently vague to cause dispute. They never learn. The rule first appeared in the 2020 rule book but of course that season didn’t go ahead. Excerpt from the 2022 rule book. 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. Peterborough played by the rule prior to 25% citing proven long term injury. Belle Vue played by the rule after 75% citing proven long term injury. Sheffield used the rule making more than 3 changes citing proven long term injury. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben91 1,743 Posted September 22, 2023 8 minutes ago, ouch said: The rule first appeared in the 2020 rule book but of course that season didn’t go ahead. Excerpt from the 2022 rule book. 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. Peterborough played by the rule prior to 25% citing proven long term injury. Belle Vue played by the rule after 75% citing proven long term injury. Sheffield used the rule making more than 3 changes citing proven long term injury. Rulemakers trying to be too smart for their own good here. “Team changes can only be made between X date and Y date. The only exception to this is the case of proven long term injury.” Simple really. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Call me wolfie 677 Posted September 22, 2023 14 minutes ago, Ben91 said: Rulemakers trying to be too smart for their own good here. “Team changes can only be made between X date and Y date. The only exception to this is the case of proven long term injury.” Simple really. I don't think that was the intention, hence why BV's 1st attempt to sign him was rejected. As you so though, the rule isn't very clear. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikebv 10,283 Posted September 22, 2023 Best of luck to Sheffield, great to see a team using the clear regulations to bring in a top star, just like the Aces did last year... "Mr Play Offs" himself.... #aceslegend #tigerslegend Will be earning as many winners (and losers) medals as Bomber at this rate... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
