I think the SCB have pored fuel on the flames of this debate unnecessarily. It is clear from what they say that they considered the interpretation of the said law before deciding it had been breached. Why not just say that the rule contained a degree of ambiguity and undertake to define it better going forward. That would at least give the referee some justification for making the decision that he did. As it is they have implied, at least, that the referee made a clear mistake but the rules don't allow a retrospective change in the result. The referee will now be pilloried when in fact inherent in the SCB statement is the fact that they had to review the rule before reaching the decision that a breach occurred. The upshot now is that (apart from Poole supporters) there will forever be a massive asterisk against who was the 2026 Championship League Champion.

I imagine that Lambo's price tag will be at an all time high now with him being the World Champion. I could see Lambert at King's Lynn where Buster spends his entire budget on him but then puts out a losing team with 6 riders on the cheap, Would Lynn fans accept that though? Where's Ipswich do need Leaders and if Doyle is plan B then someone big must be plan A like a Lambert or Sayfutdinov.

Have to agree with the big 1&5 idea, has proved advantageous over the last couple of seasons particularly in superheats. On Rushen,  I'm not so keen if he's going to be doing as much racing as this year, because I think Poole becomes he's lowest priority. Until the finals he riding at 4 seemed pretty mediocre on the whole, to me.

I absolutely agree with you.    The regulation as written is completely ambiguous - as demonstrated by numerous different interpretations on here.    The SCB had a perfect chance here to explain its own interpretation, and to provide the evidence to support it.    It has even had to update its own news release to change 'admissable' to 'inadmissable' regarding the appeal.  Wholly unsatisfactory in all respects 

SCB have said then a mistake was made on the night, so where is the details of how the person making that decision will be disciplined for effectively bringing the sport into disrepute? 

But that's my issue. You're saying to ignore Google, but that seems to be the only source to define the inner edge as where the white line meets the shale. I can't see it defined within the rule book. As I said, I'd be happy for someone to definitively prove me wrong with something more than their own, subjective opinion on the definition of the written rule. The section on the on the infield gives dimensions to permissible objects or personnel from the track inner edge. Interestingly, the diagram on page 74 shows a 3 meter Photo reporters line, clearly dimensioned from the infield side of the white line. I still believe that the definition of the track inner edge and the point of exclusion for crossing it lacks clarity within the SCB rulebook.