szkocjasid

Having seen the clash on BSN, my first instinct was that it was a very poor from Morris, I guess Zischke did lock up a little to give Morris the benefit of the doubt that it was just racing, rather than reckless. KJP deserves imense credit for avoiding the fallen riders, well done to him. He certainly scrubbed off the speed, better than Morris did, yes I realise they were taking different lines. No suggestion of a ban from me, just the exclusion from the heat for Morris.

Glasgow need a signing more than Scunthorpe did. Scunny could have used guests or r/r all season, but Glasgow only get a 28 day facility. Means there could be a situation where a rider leaves a club, but they can't sign a replacement & the facility runs out before the Important matches at the end of the season 🤔

I agree with the logic that a transfer should be allowed, but if the clubs don't plan for these situations & have to use guests till the end of the season, it's their fault!

Agree, wish they BSPL wouldn't so willingly accept riders missing British matches. If clubs don't mind as they get guests, remove (or limit) that option, hopefully clubs then look for riders who don't miss so many meetings.

Very funny lol!

That was pretty amusing lol! I wish it wasn't the case though.

Agree, especially at second tier level

Still an extra 2 matches though, just as finishing 4th would've been. Mind you Poole were big favourites last year when Redcar won the BSN series

Really? I don't remember seeing anyone say that.

I'm glad someone has said that 👏

Good chance of a BSN final to race though.

Kennett didn't get re-assesed, he got a 5 point average after completing 8 matches for Oxford.

I quite like the idea of using a guest from a lower league to cover a reserve. What if your number 5 is missing lol!

I do think Ipswich were very lucky in heat 2, not sure there was enough contact to justify stopping the race, even if you give KJP the benefit of the doubt, Edwards fell on his own, so why does he get a second chance?

So how does a team cope with only one reserve then?

Fancy Poole to win this one, strengthened with a guest for Bowes. With both teams using r/r reserves will be vital. With Killeen being 4th in the averages, at least one of the r/r heats will include both reserves, I wonder if they'll "sacrifice" heat 13 by giving a reserve an outing in that heat?

I was replying to SteveLyric who thought it was the next day, but now you're reminding me of what happened, did he not complete a Prem match, apparently picking up an injury in the process, missed Poole due to not riding in Denmark (because he was injured), then returned to Ipswich the next night? Was the Ipswich meeting he missed not a day after riding in Denmark? I think whenever a rider misses a meeting one day, but rides the next people get suspicious.

Was hard to judge how Kennett would do, not raced "professionally" since he got injured at Plymouth & starting mid-season. His current form could be useful to Oxford trying to avoid the wooden spoon & make him a sought after rider next year though.

If Hook struggles, it will lower his average, which could help his bargaining, by saying "I'm better than that, but was racing against riders already dialled in". Strange situation signing a 5.5 rider as a "3rd heat leader". If Scunny have been talking to Hook since April, means they could have replaced MPT when he lost form, but chose not to. However he goes, I will applaud Scunthorpe for not going down the guest route.

If there was ever a time to use that ruling, it would've been for Edinburgh maybe 5 years ago (if my memory is correct it goes something like this). Nathan Greaves retired just before the end of August (transfer cut-off date), William Lawson who had been dropped earlier could only be reintroduced using the September averages, couldn't replace Greaves in August. So Edinburgh had to use guests for the rest of the season, same thing happened to Redcar when Connor Bailey retired. I understand they don't want teams to sign riders just for the play-offs, but an rule that facilitates more guests being used needs looking at.

So he got a 7 day ban for missing the Ipswich meeting, not the Poole meeting, gotcha. I still find it ridiculous that kf he didn't have a Danish club he would've got a ban for missing Poole's match due to illness, but because he had a Danish fixture, he doesn’t have to ride due to illness & escaped a ban (till the next day).

Not unless they've changed the rules you can't. Only change allowed would be to bring back an injured rider after a temporary change ie Erik Riss / Charles Wright scenarios.

Lawson would've git a 7 day ban for being too ill to race for Poole, but as he was too ill to race in Denmark instead he didn't get to ban. Ludicrous situation. I don't remember him getting a 7 day ban for missing an Ipswich match, unless my memory is failing me?

Well everyone else is wrong lol! Poole could have replaced Bowes anytime if they had a suitable replacement lined up. Plus I don't think there's a single Champ club who would replace a 5 pointer with a NL rider. Poole are clearly stronger without Bowes, but have done no wrong.

Very different situation with Bowes, as he was injured, Poole didn't "get rid of him". They are fortunate his average didn't drop a lot so can choose good guests, but the rules allow them to do that, they don't need to sign a replacement. I think there should be a limit on how long a club can use a guest to cover an injury, but can't blame Poole for making the best of the rules. I would say guests for injuries is far more acceptable, than guests for riders racing elsewhere.