SCB

He didn't make the right decision. The rule clearly state, without any ambiguity, that rider have to wear goggles.

Yes. Thats exactly what is meant to happen. What do you think is meant to happen?

From you that means a lot

Forget that the rules for Sky meetings are a joke. And the fact that Sky meeting have different rules is a joke.

Common sense? Not really. This is a case of "sweep it under the carpet, Coventry will be happy to have got their 3 grand back (plus anything off the fans) and everyone will forget about it so we can carry on as normal"

So you accept he didnt have his goggles on. The rule say you have to wear goggles. Do you accept he broke the rules then?

There only so much rubbish you can sweep under the carpet until it begins to smell all the time!

HALLELUJAH! Why was that so hard to admit?

I'm thick? It is NOTHING to do with the start marshal. Where in there does it mention "tell the referee if the rider is not wearing goggles"?

The rule says he has to have it on and be in control of the bike at the start gate. While he was playing with his goggle he had taken it off then put it back on. The start marshal was in control of the bike not Kyle.

ITS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE START MARSHAL

It's nothing to do with the start marshal. It's NOT his job. Seriously, wonder about this forum. People make things up. Mark Lemon pointed out the lack of goggle to the referee after the heat, the referee should have then excluded Kyle. It's that simple.

You're correct. He should have been excluded for that!! https://youtu.be/KDpWSEGkXRM?t=1h43m43s There you go, not in "full personal control" as the start guy is revving the bike and the cut-out is not attached as he's seen putting it on second later!

This from the guy who yesterday said he had a good memory and got confused when I said he couldn't even remember 30 second back when replying to a post! I've already made it quite clear I have no issue with Poole over this and I have had a go at someone who accused Poole of cheating as cheating implies some intent to break rule for a gain and I don't think that was the case here. The problem here is that if the BSPA/SCB/ACU don't clamp down on this one they're saying, "safety? Pah, who gives a rubbish" and I'm afraid that next time Kyle Newman says it's not safe to go out on track I'll be pointing this incident out! If I drive down the road without a seat belt on I get punished if caught, not because I have gained but because I have put myself at risk, this is the same. Lindback doesn't ride in the British league. Maybe thats why

"3.4.3 c. A Protest (which may initially be verbal with a promise to pay the fee) concerning a specific Heat must be made before the start of the next Heat." If Lemo is correct on twitter and he DID question it straight away, as long as BV pay the fee they CAN appeal this.

But if we're throwing "hows, whats and whys" around. How is it fair that just because a referee is inept that BV should lose out? While it's entirely possibly that Kyle could have come from 15 metres, he was the one who was in the wrong so should on balance be the one who loses out, not the 100% innocent BV. As I said above, the issue here is the referee has balls-up, he is the one I have an issue with!

TBF, it's not the start marshals job to know the rules other than those that effect him.

TBF, there was a time when British players started heading off to Italy (and other European clubs) that the UK press and fans got a bit upset about it. As for Woffy riding in the UK, I doubt it'd make a blind bit of difference as the man on the street doesn't gave a bloody clue who he is!

It happening again. Poole fans defending rule breaking? Why not just say, "you know what, he did break the rules. I doubt he meant to, he was just being foolhardy/brave and that's why we love him. But I can see he broke the rules". If Poole fans cannot accept this clear cut breaking of rules then we have no hope of reasonable discussion with them at other times. Nobody is saying Poole are cheats for this, nobody is saying they should be excessively punished but what some of us are saying is that it's not fair on BV. Poole broke the rules and have potentially gotten away with it. Even if the BSPA/SCB amend the result they'll only take away Kyles 2 points, they won't give the 2 points to BV (how stupid is that rule? and I DONT blame Poole for this). There also the fact that had he ben excluded Middlo would have put him off 15 metres and who knows what may have happened. Still possibly a 5-1, but with Starke off a different gate it's not impossible that BV could have got a 5-1. By not knowing the rules/noticing the referees has messed this up for BV. It's ok saying "who can know all the rules" - well a referee?! And TBH, theres not that many racing rules. So in short, I have no issue with Poole, I actually have huge respect for Kyle for doing in really. But it's wrong, the race should not have started and Kyle should have been excluded.

The thing is, removing two points isnt enough. BV should get 2 as well. But even that's not right. He's have gone off 15 metres putting Starke on gate 2 and anything could have happened then. The referee messed up and has possibly had a major effect on the result.

So it's inreasonable for people on here to mention compassionate grounds but Poole speedway can? Surely if you're going to have a go at people on here you should be getting into Poole Speedway!

Erm...... "Poole will go into their crucial second leg of their semi-final play off against Coventry without Australian Dakota North who has been advised by his doctor to take time out on compassionate grounds."

The official website says its "compassion grounds"

Didnt gain an advantage? He shouldn't have been in the race so being in the race was a bloody huge advantage!

Rule 12.9 "goggles must be worn..."