Barney Rabbit

I gave that example in answer to your 'how can people not know about speedway' type comment. But since you mention youngsters, I've got a couple of kids, both in their thirties who know about speedway because their parents went. I moved several times during my career, and my kids made friends with kids who didn't know about speedway - some obviously did, but some didn't and they all lived in the same area. If people are interested, they'll look. If they're not, well.... But just think on this...Why do you like speedway? I was asked that several times. I told them I liked the unique smell, the noise, the dust....They're not everybody's cup of tea, are they?

I live on a development of seven dwellings. Only one other has Sky, and neither of us has SkySports. None of us bothers with the now weekly local paper, favouring broadsheet dailies. I have a season ticket for Posh and two others support them, going fairly regularly but choosing their matches. We're all retired. When I first arrived and we were going to Alwalton, decked out in Panthers' jackets, they all, at some time, asked us where we were going since it wasn't football season. I told them, and, all but one, had no idea what or where it was. Why should they? They had no interest in motorcycles and had other interests - none of us sit and mope in our homes, certainly not me even now I've stopped going! OK, you're interested in speedway, not everybody else is!

When still working, if I mentioned speedway to colleagues it was usually 'I went once or twice to Donny, Sheffield, Hull, Scunny (all fairly local). Might as well stop it after ten yards, first to the corner won. Bored to tears'. I could cite cases where that wasn't the case but, let's be honest, it is very often! Ok, if you're hooked by the smell, the noise, whatever it is you go for then that's something you live with but for a newcomer...... Many of my sports-orientated colleagues watched it on Sky in preference to Emmernation St, Eastenders, or bog-snorkling on the other Sky Sports channels but not if football, cricket or a rugby code was on.

I'm only answering you mate. You keep going round and round trying to justify a big bottle job so why get on at others who're going round and round putting another point of view.

As some are saying, the easy option, or no decision at all. It wasn't 50/50. Either Pedersen illegally forced Holder over giving Holder no option but to do as he did - Pedersen to blame - or Holder was legitimately clamped but opted to go over the curb and lost control thus t-boning Pedersen - Holder to blame. Depends on where one sees the incident as starting. But the one place it never started was the start gate. That was clean. It was never an unsatisfactory start but that's the line Ackroyd took. Sorry, 'no decision - all 4 back' was a bottle-job.

I've seen a ref allow all 4 back after a back straight crash on the third lap. That was a bottled decision too

As you post, we, over here, see it all the time, but isn't that the point of the thread? I watch quite a lot of Polish speedway (having Polish parents and relatives I'm over there a time ir two a year, always in the speedway season) and far more first bend clashes result in exclusions than in British speedway, a point made by Mr Grodski who's never slow in excluding a rider in a first bend incident if it isn't as a result of something starting at the start - as this particular clash wasn't. I think our refs are far too quick to duck out of an unpopular decision if they can just get away with 'unsatisfactory start, all four back'. This was a classic example. I'd say the originator of this thread is saying just that.

As you say, it started on the first bend, not at the start. Agreed, the ref has the discretion to call an unsatisfactory start and he did so despite, as you have just posted, the incident started well away from the start area and was a first bend incident unrelated to the start. How is that not bottling making an exclusion decision?

Thanks again DW. Clear, precise and very easy to follow. Hope to download more next year.

Thank you DW. Keep up the good work.

Thanks again, DW.

Thanks DW. Great as always.

Thanks D.M. As good as ever.

Thanks DW. Clear, concise and very easy to follow.

Thanks DW. Excellent as ever.

Thanks again DW, and, once again, excellent as always.

Thanks again DW.

Thanks DW, excellent as always.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

Any chance of the link please? Just lost my Sky signal, being told that no satellite signal being received. Would be a good stand-by should the Sky signal not come back.

Yes, thanks. Just had a look at my score-sheet with reading glasses on. Confused that heat with the previous one in which Mark was out front and won. Glad he's unhurt.

Can't agree there. Freemantle never stopped altogether though he did go very very slow and Morley had got going again just before the third bend. That was Ms Horley's 2nd error in that heat - Heeps had just got back on his bike and started moving when the red lights came on (realised 1-8 was better than 0-8 I suppose) - she should have let that re-run carry on. I have to agree with Len Silver. The idea of the rule is to bring a losing team closer and a rider allowing his team-mate past is part and parcel of that - regardless of how much the leading rider slows down to let his partner pass. And just how many 'bona-fide attempts to race' has she seen in 2 rider heats when both riders are from the same team? Apart from that contentious call, this was a rather boring meeting for the neutral. A very good, all-round efficient Fen Tigers' performance had more-or-less killed the match by the half-way stage but there were some good rides from Morley and Owen to keep some interest going for the visitors. Tremendous effort from Owen in heat 15, what a pity it ended the way it did. Any news? Hope he's ok.

Ward, before the rerun, said 'Batch to do his job then we've got Chris, Chris and Big Ginge'. No mention of Schlein. Justice was done.

Peterborough track record is 58.4. Krzysztof Kasprzak set it in heat 1 of the play-off semi, 2nd leg last year. (20/09/'10).

To you, maybe. Not to me. Let's just wait and see what caused the rift before deciding who's right and wrong in this.