Mistakes have been made in many big Sporting Events.Lesson will be learned is the common answer.People do have to accept the result though ,how many BIG sporting events have you seen replayed.

I support your thinking for the most part. However, inherent in the SCB statement is the strong implication that they declared a breach of the rule only after they'd reviewed the rule in question. In other words, at the time of the breach it wasn't clear (maybe) that the rule was clear enough for the referee to come to same conclusion. Reading this one way means that the SCB has thrown the referee under the bus and used other rules to prevent a change to the announced result. As I've said elsewhere, the SCB could simply have said the rule contained some ambiguity and that the referee ruled on the basis of his interpretation at the time. I think there would have been a much greater acceptance of the result standing.

Wasn't there originally an maximum age stipulation for Doubling Up?? Maybe I am wrong, but I seem to remember it was Scott Nicholls who challenged it... It used to be only a max two per team also wasn't it?.. And then, of course, promoters saw the benefits of sharing rider costs, whilst now employing a level of riders previously unaffordable, so the floodgates opened .😁

So if a rider has alcohol on his breathe and is tested after the meeting and fails - no action? A bike is tested and found to be over size after the meeting - no action? Sorry. I don't care who "moves on" and its not because its Poole, there is absolutely no justice in the way the rules are structured and how this has been handled.

So you are saying that on the line constitutes crossing the line? Other than by just writing out the regulations again can you evidence that that is the SCB's interpretation? Eg is it documented anywhere ? Is that the interpretation that referees are trained against and is communicated to clubs and riders? And let's not go to the point about which part of the wheel has crossed the line. I suspect we all take that as the part of the tyre in contact with the ground, but that isn't what it says.  I understand that you may think I'm being pedantic, but regulations should be able to withstand the scrutiny of a pedant! Plus, I don't want such an occurrence to happen again.  I'm going to Belle Vue on Friday. Given that the inner edge is of a completely different construction at the NSS, I hope the referee, clubs and riders have been fully briefed and are clear about what crossing the inner edge of the track actually means.  The SCB could clarify this today and give certainty, and I'm pretty sure the regulations will be modified for next season. 

100%... The "talent pool" is thin enough already, as is shown by the weakest team each season, therefore stretching it to seven teams currently can only dilute it further... And bringing in two compulsory U21's will already do that given the lack of U21 talent who are not riding in Poland and are not Scandinavian.. A six team league this season has one team clearly adrift before a wheel was turned, and a seven team league the year before had two... Wasn't the plan to make the top tier clearly stronger than the second? If so, sticking with six teams would be the more logical way of delivering this.. If Eastbourne do come back, starting on Fridays/Saturdays in the second tier would seem to be the best "first step" to see how that goes..