szkocjasid

What loophole did you spot? As it turned out Harris was an awesome guest, but before the match I would've suggested Lambert is the best option (if legal).

I noticed the Workington preview didn't name any Oxford riders in it, so we'll never know, which riders would've be competing where?

I glad they prioritised the BSN trophy, avoided the shambles of last year's jubilee league, or teams reaching a final in May, only to race it in October. There was enough weeks in the year to race fixtures, too many gaps early on, then clubs planned to be busy in August, so there was no contingency for rain-offs late in the season (except extending the cut-off date)

Don't forget the summer / jubilee trophy from last year. Fans paid to watch qualifying matches, but one team pulled out of the final, which still hasn't been raced!

Well if I had my way, no play-offs, top of the league are Champions, got until Oct 31st to complete fixtures

One thought about riders not wanting to travel up to Edinburgh (for whatever reason) in theory every NL heat leader should want to step up to the Champ next year, but there won't be that many places available, if riders only want to race for local clubs, they may miss out on a Champ team spot.

I find it strange they allow the league cut-off date to be extended, presumably as it's important for all teams to have an equal chance of qualifying. But then don't extend the cut-off date, once the play-offs start!

Alex Spooner would have been the obvious pick, had he not got injured. I also feel riders like Danny Phillips & Greg Blair (before injury) surely wouldn't have said Edinburgh is too far when they race for Berwick? They're not exactly strong 2.00 riders, but would score more than Wood.

It's interesting some saying Glasgow are stronger without Vissing, others saying they have no chance using r/r. I feel they are slightly weaker without him, but don't feel r/r could be used as an excuse for defeat / explanation for a victory.

It's not every year the top 5 are so far ahead of the bottom 4. But yes, the less teams in the play-offs the better! Personally I think it's a bit rediciulous finishing 6th of 9 gives you a shot at the title!

I wonder if they'll stick with the groups format next year? One issue is so many clubs racing on their off day, plus the struggles to arrange postponed fixtures. If it was a simple knockout & Edinburgh vs Poole is rained off, you can pick the next Friday, as it is, the following week Edinburgh could be racing Scunthorpe, then Poole vs Scunthorpe etc. I know they want as many teams in the play-offs as possible (to earn money) but do clubs get big crowds when racing on their off race nights?

I can't understand why Wood has a Champ team spot, as there MUST be stronger British riders out there. I often get told, they are not willing to travel up, but unless the club posts a list of riders, who were unwilling to sign for them, have to blame them for not signing someone stronger!

If clubs vote for play-offs, they must realise there's a chance one of your riders could be injured, so can't complain about it imo. Part of me feels if a club finishes 4th in the (qualifying) league, then they don't "deserve" to be Champions anyway! But if they won, I wouldn't complain, because that's the rules, whoever wins the play-offs are the rightful Champions.

Maybe I wrong, but I don't think of Wolves as the sort of club who would fight this "injustice" just meekly agree to what they're told? Last season Belle Vue have shown what can happen when you challenge the lawmakers, ditto Scott Nicholls 5 or so years ago when he was banned from doubling up.

Would it not be easier to simply state, "riders have to have a rolling average to be able to guest" Why to the rule makers make it so hard? Saying you need to have an MA, then list a bunch of reasons why riders don't have an MA

Lambert has an * next to his average. The rules on the greensheets are as follows assessed MA due to one of following New Foreign Rider Converted MA New Rider Re-assessed MA Est MA older than prev 2 seasons So using thier rules Lambert has a. "assessed MA" as it's an established MA older than 2 seasons!

Most Polish fans seem to think the exact opposite, play-offs would be ruined by allowing guests. In any other sport in the world (plus foreign Speedway leagues), teams with injuries are weakened, don't know why British Speedway feels this is not fair?

He'd be deemed witholding his services & get a 28 day ban, with Sheffield allowed a facility to cover him

The fact that people still argue / disagree about Lambert signing for Belle Vue one year later, shows just how poorly the rule was written.

Think the loss of Doyle will be too much for Ipswich to overcome. Ipswich 43 - 47 Belle Vue

Don't forget Ipswich could have chosen Rowe (or Kemp) as their RS. But for whatever reason, went with Joe T when Thomas got injured. It's their own fault if it comes back to haunt them.

Indeed, even if Jack Smith scores 0, would anyone else do any better? Maybe Henry Atkins would be a better choice, but he's still weaker than opposition RS Connor Bailey

My memory from the NL in the late 80s & 90s, was when a heat leader was out r/r used, when a second string was missing, a reserve stepped up into the team & a junior stepped up to reserve. Can't remember situations when 2 heat leaders were out though?

Where has the talk of a 1 match ban being given to Jenkins & Atkins come from? I've never heard of that rule? I'm sure in previous seasons the NLRC is the only event that gets priority over the higher leagues, but I kinda expect to see Jenkins & Atkins racing for Oxford, with Kinsley & Killeen / Scott racing in the NLRC. Even if that's not a rule

Don't forget Chris Louis or Jason Crump