AFCB Wildcat

I'll try and help them then, because I genuinely believe that that this is what they were saying, in a clumsy way. :- Having reviewed the incident against the written rule, it is acknowledged that a level of ambiguity in the wording allowed a definition of the inner edge of the track, to be the outer edge of the track marking, which was breached. It is confirmed that crossing the inner edge of the track marking is the point of exclusion and without sufficient evidence to prove this was breached, we uphold the referees decision. The wording of the rule has been amended in line with the FIM regulations to confirm it's original intent.

I've just read Neil Vatchers response in the Star and found it all very confusing at first. That is, I couldn't understand how, after confirming the definition of the rule to be that both wheels have to be fully over the inner edge of the line, he then went on to say that it was never the intention to throw the referee under the bus by saying that the rule was breached. Then, after reading Godfreys deluded ramblings at the end of the article, the penny dropped. Godfrey is using the clerical error made when copying the FIM rule, where they missed the word 'marking', to justify him being able to make up his own version. So as I read Vatchers comments, where he says that the statement was about the wording of the rule & not the referee's decision, it seems that as a gesture of appeasment to Godfrey, they have acknowledged that the clerical error had allowed him to interperate the 'as written' rule differently to its intended definition. Thus they are saying that it was Godfreys definition of the rule that was breached and not that the referee, who applied the rule correctly had made a mistake, so the wording of the rule has been changed to avoid further confusion.

Isn't it amazing, that after all these years of British speedway, the referees (or anyone else for that matter) weren't aware of this interpretation of the rule? Well....unless it's just recently been made up of course. You have to say, it's a bit odd that the Speedway Star, backed up by 2 referees with over 20 years experience including at FIM level, published a completely different version of the rule. Is this new interpretation just for 2027 though? or is it subject to change if a BSPA representative in the SCB finds that it doesn't suit their team in next seasons playoffs? The whole debacle is frankly embarrassing.

So you're saying that the SCB have a different interpretation of the rules than the officials that oversee them?? It gets worse! 🫣

Inconclusive at best. I wouldn't want to bet either way on if the wheel was over tbh, but innocent till proven guilty & there wasn't definitive proof available to exclude him.

Thanks for clearing that up. Could you relay that information directly to the SCB though please? It seems that the joke went over their heads and they may have taken your image at face value before making their statement.😁

The quote from Howe :- "I was in the pits watching it on the screen and was pretty confident that Zach Cook may have left the track" ... Well that obviously left the the SCB no choice then. A 'definitely maybe' is clearly a FACT! Let's just shut up & move on now. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Apparently according to the Star, 2 referees with over 20 years experience supported Carrington's conclusion and how could they not? To exclude Cook we need to see evidence that the outer edge of his back wheel was over the inner edge of the white line. In the view from the outside, the back wheel is obscured by Pickering. The view from the back only shows the inside of the wheel, with the white line obscured. We've seen no image to show that the outside of the wheel was over the inside of the line. The SCB statement is therefore a farce, unless they have evidence that wasn't available to the referee.

I bet they didn't!! I think that Paul Burbidge's piece in the Star sums up the whole thing perfectly.

That's the strange thing though isn't it? The amended wording of the rule just confirms the definition of its breach to be the only scenario that they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt with the evidence that we & the referee saw. All the previous arguments I've seen that sought to justify the SCB statement had been based on incorrect definitions of the rule, but now they have removed all ambiguity that might have gone some way to justify their decision. It's simply baffling!

I think you're the one getting confused, not me. When you asked why I continued to argue, you were quoting my post to Gavan where I challenged his and dontforgetthefueltapsbruv's unsubstantiated opinion that the white line belonged to the infield but you go on about the SCB ruling. As others have pointed out though, the SCB statement may be a fact but it certainly lacks substance. Anyway, it would appear that I was correct about the white line. The SCB have amended the wording even though, in my opinion it was adequately defined previously as being on the track surface, which would make the inner side of the line the boundary and that is now confirmed.... No apologies necessary lads 😁 Having just received my Star this morning I see that it says "the white line is part of track, meaning a rider is still legally on the track as long as part of their rear tyre is in contact with the line - however small that contact may be" It doesn't state a source for this ruling but if it's from the SCB we can consider it FACT! 🙂. It seems that one is now put to bed too so there's nothing more to argue about now regarding the actual rules, is there?

So in a discussion forum you want me to accept people's unsubstantiated opinions as fact & shut up because it doesn't suit your narrative? .... The SCB bottled it and if people interperate what I said as that a metre wide line that the SCB rules specifically say is on the track surface, could extend across the infield then maybe it's their eyes that need opening, not mine and I have a right to reply.

Back that up with substance then. Not your personal opinion or Google AI. It may open my eyes....😁 I've backed my opinion with a quoted line from the SCB regulations. Every time I ask those who refute it to back up their opinions with fact, I'm met with silence and tumbleweed. As I said... if the line was a meter wide it would have to be on the raceable surface to comply with the SCB written rule.

I disagree, it speciifically says the line is to be "on the track surface" That is what is written, not my definition. If the line was a metre wide it would have to extend across the shale and be part of the track to comply with the written rule, with the inner edge of the track being the meeting of the line & the infield. As I said, markings on the infield are specified in the following paragraph. The White line is stated as 'on the track surface' so how can it count as the infield?

I'm still trying to find where this is defined as a written rule. Having revisited the SCB regulations I note that in section 05.1.4 it states - on the track surface clearly marked lines, chalk is acceptable, are required: a) a continuous line to define the inner edge of the track circuit. The following paragraph then refers to the markings on the infield. If its on the track surface then surely it's part of the track and thus, if any part of the tyre is on the line, it's still on the track.

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.