Marmite

Clearly that is your prerogative, and when I watch it again I may change my mind, but there were clearly elbows between NP and Holder, to me NP did not appear to go offline, but like I say, I need to see it again, and Holder appear to be leaning in. If I am wrong I am wrong, but you seem to have not really justified your opinion other than saying I am wrong and insulting me.

I thought the racing was pretty close at times, but I think you answer your own question perhaps. As these are the top riders in the world, once the first bend is over, unless a rider makes a mistake or goes off-line it's all over, and as these are the top riders in the world, they dont make those mistakes too often.

Well I admit I would have liked to have seen an overhead angle for a better view, but considering your supporting a Poole race jacket, I will disregard your point of view as biased.

Good point, most of his naff'ness is because he gets OTT trying to flog a dead horse by trying to claim a good race was a superb race, that a boring meeting is a great meeting.. he seems to assume his viewers are blind and not watching TV, he can get away with it on radio, not on TV. Stick to his job of commentating like most other sports commentators and he will only be half as awful as he usually is. What really upset me this evening is when he shouted 'let the crowd' bring up Chris Harris I think it was when he won, rather than get to hear the air horns and the atmosphere, prattling Pearson ruined it by shouting 'woooooo'.

As usual, NP is everybody's bad boy. But on both occasions it looked to me like Holder (who can do no wrong to Prattling Pearson and most on here) seemed to lean in on NP, so when NP stood his ground, not really moving off line Holder was forced wide, into Emil, who then lost it. I would have put all four back myself, but I find it amazing nobody as even considered Holder might have been the cause. Had Pearson once again showing he does not have a clue after calling the wrong GP winner a couple of seasons ago, not understanding the meeting reserves can not take a replacement ride. It was pretty obvious really, as if the reserve won they would be in the final. Everyone says this guy has superb speedway knowledge, but he keeps calling lots of things wrong. Shame he never qualified then.

Thanks Gemini, had missed that thread.

Quick question, planning my first visit to Cardiff is it possible to buy tickets on the gate? I just tried to buy online, whilst I am always happy to pay good money for good tickets, I refuse to ever pay 'processing fee's', especially when the cost is likely to be 300% higher than the actual processing cost. So is there a way to buy tickets on the day without getting ripped off. Might only be £4.80 but I suspect the card processing fee is only 2-3% and p+p costs will be what, 50p maximum? Yep, call me Scrooge, but I hate getting ripped off by ticket companies.

Well that's what speedway is all about, lol

No sorry, it is not as simple as that. Whatever phrase you want to use 'fell, dropped it, knocked off' it is about what caused that event that is the important aspect that the referee needs to address. Did Harris cause his own incident, or was the incident instigated by another party.

Amazing, Monday morning and we are still discussing it, without getting personal... that is what sport should be about opinions that keep you talking for weeks.

Well even if you are right, look at the way Harris responded on Camera. Harris rarely criticise other riders on camera, if at all, but he was furious with NP in the interview, and that was not the face of a man trying to cover for his own actions, he truly believed the push led him to fall.

Doesn't mean they and you are correct in your assumption of the incident. Only one person knows, that is Chris Harris and he claims he was helped on his way. He does not come across as the devious guy, or the type to make excuses. Look at Monday's incident, he had every right to blame Nichols, but he never, he blamed himself.

The more I watch it in those replays from Spook the more convinced I am that Harris would not have fallen without the contact from NP. Later in commentary with Lindback, Jan made the point Linback was in front, he had the right to choose the white line. Same here, Harris was in front, he was clearly going around the line.. until whacked from behind by NP. Sure that is the only question the ref has to ask.. would the falling rider have come off without contact yes or no? If no, then the rider forcing that contact is out.

Ahh, well thought out reasoned responses to my points.....

What a load of tosh..... For four reasons. 1 - He had no guarantee Pedersen would be excluded. 2 - He knew Jason was right behind, so laying the bike down meant pretty strong chances of getting wiped out by Crumpie. 3 - Even in a re-run he must have known Crumpie and Holder would outgate him second time, so even getting rid of Pedersen, he would still have to start again against them. 4 - Harris as never struck me as a rider that lays it down, he takes a fair few on track knocks as Monday showed and does not bail out easily.

Does anybody know how vital each point is?

Sorry Jan, I know you read the forums sometimes, but almost identical incidents, and both times you back your man Nicki when he was on different ends of each decision. Shame on Pearson for clearly not agreeing with Jan first time out but not having the balls to say it.

I agree with most than Jan was a pleasure to listen to, and he did get something wrong, but corrected himself, which is fine, rather than gloss over his mistake which others seem to do. His technical knowledge of the sport is without question, and a world finalist himself, brings real stature to the commentary box. I disagree with most on here in that I actually don't mind Tatum. Tatum at least offers opinions, I don't always agree with them, but he does not sit on the fence and to be fair to Tatum, he calls it real time, without the benefit of replays, although sometimes he seems to ignore the replays when available to stick to his original view. The main problem remains Pearson, at one point Jan was talking technical about someone's clutch slipping, and it biting, which was informative, but he repeated the same thing 5 times in the space of two minutes all because of the questions that the senior commentary box presenter should have worded better, to get Jan to expand more, rather than repeating the same thing.

The bore fest not helped by the commentary from Pearson, clearly biased towards his favourites 'Hancock, Crump and Holder' and sucking up to their every move. His interview with Jan was pretty awful too, instead of focussing on Jan he kept turning to the camera, pretty disrespectful to the person your interviewing. When I have done interviews I am always told to ignore the camera and focus on the other person in the interview.