CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY OFF FINAL - SCUNTHORPE v POOLE v SCUNTHORPE (2 & 7 October)

[LisaColette]

3 minutes ago, Neila said:

But the SCB have said the line was crossed by zac.  So confirmed Poole are cheats 🤣

Not necessary need to be crossed. The infield includes the white line according to our good friend Google and Mr Howe. So rear tyre only need to be on it to be excluded.

2 minutes ago, WookieboyDon said:

Nice to hear you say that.

Still so many Pirates on here and on social media either burying their heads in the sand or going on the offensive and either disagreeing with the SCB decision (!) or rubbing it in that Scunthorpe won’t get the trophy. 

I haven't been on any other SM to see what has been said yet but if that is happening on FB, i am not surprised! 

[Phannan]

Zach superb tonight. He’s even more impressive when he stays on the track 😁

[ASpeedwayfan]

Let’s hope over the winter the refs can all receive some training to help them make far fewer mistakes. Too many wrong decisions. 
 

[Bellers101]

19 minutes ago, ASpeedwayfan said:

Let’s hope over the winter the refs can all receive some training to help them make far fewer mistakes. Too many wrong decisions. 
 

Should be easier these days as well with the increased numbers of replays available.

[Neila]

12 minutes ago, Bellers101 said:

Should be easier these days as well with the increased numbers of replays available.

Got to get Greg Blair with a fans video then go running to the ref, he then changes his decision especially at Berwick V worky 😜

[scunny1]

What a cop out from the SCB. Confirm illegal tyre warming and confirm rear wheel out of bounds in Superheat, but result stands because the ref wrongly declared the result. Well done Scunthorpe Scorpions, the true winners of the league. 

[False dawn]

26 minutes ago, scunny1 said:

What a cop out from the SCB. Confirm illegal tyre warming and confirm rear wheel out of bounds in Superheat, but result stands because the ref wrongly declared the result. Well done Scunthorpe Scorpions, the true winners of the league. 

Where's the sense of fairness in this?

https://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.260

[Paul Johnson]

Lisa.._.Zachs front wheel was on the grass,as soon as his back wheel hit the white line the ref should of flagged it up before announcing the result,2 wheels need to be over

[AFCB Wildcat]

4 hours ago, LisaColette said:

Not necessary need to be crossed. The infield includes the white line according to our good friend Google and Mr Howe. So rear tyre only need to be on it to be excluded.

The Google search definitions are very clear but I've still yet to see where they are officially written within the SCB rule book. Nobody has yet pointed me in the right direction. 

The SCB statement says "having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached.

Well okay, reviewed against what, by who and where's the evidence?  Did someone at the SCB Google it too? Because as far as I can see, the rules 'as written' are subjective in interpretation.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I can't see anything to back it up. The Google search quoted says "according to SCB regulations the white line is technically Part of the infield and defines the precise racing boundary as where the dirt meets the outer edge of the white paint. Where do the SCB regulations state this? And why does it say 'formula scout' after it? 

At the end of the day, I have no axe to grind either way. To be honest, towards the end of it, Scunny had won me over with their tenacity and I wouldn't have been upset if they'd won, but when people are saying that this vague SCB statement is proof or make it a fact that the rule was breached, I'd like to see the proof.

I'm looking forward to this week's Star. I hope they can put more meat on the bones. 

[Marksman]

 

4 hours ago, AFCB Wildcat said:

The Google search definitions are very clear but I've still yet to see where they are officially written within the SCB rule book. Nobody has yet pointed me in the right direction. 

The SCB statement says "having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached.

Well okay, reviewed against what, by who and where's the evidence?  Did someone at the SCB Google it too? Because as far as I can see, the rules 'as written' are subjective in interpretation.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I can't see anything to back it up. The Google search quoted says "according to SCB regulations the white line is technically Part of the infield and defines the precise racing boundary as where the dirt meets the outer edge of the white paint. Where do the SCB regulations state this? And why does it say 'formula scout' after it? 

At the end of the day, I have no axe to grind either way. To be honest, towards the end of it, Scunny had won me over with their tenacity and I wouldn't have been upset if they'd won, but when people are saying that this vague SCB statement is proof or make it a fact that the rule was breached, I'd like to see the proof.

I'm looking forward to this week's Star. I hope they can put more meat on the bones. 

Ignore any suggestion from Google Gemini, it’s just how their AI is trying to interpret the rule. It’s just generated words and those words are not pulled from the rulebook directly.

The actual rule is in the statement, it’s pretty clear too. Inner edge where the white line starts. Hence a part of the wheels have to be touching the track to be safe

 

[AFCB Wildcat]

2 hours ago, Marksman said:

 

Ignore any suggestion from Google Gemini, it’s just how their AI is trying to interpret the rule. It’s just generated words and those words are not pulled from the rulebook directly.

The actual rule is in the statement, it’s pretty clear too. Inner edge where the white line starts. Hence a part of the wheels have to be touching the track to be safe

 

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. 

 

 

 

[marko]

SCB have said then a mistake was made on the night, so where is the details of how the person making that decision will be disciplined for effectively bringing the sport into disrepute? 

[Sir Sidney]

10 minutes ago, AFCB Wildcat said:

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. 

 

 

 

I absolutely agree with you. 

 

The regulation as written is completely ambiguous - as demonstrated by numerous different interpretations on here. 

 

The SCB had a perfect chance here to explain its own interpretation, and to provide the evidence to support it. 

 

It has even had to update its own news release to change 'admissable' to 'inadmissable' regarding the appeal. 

Wholly unsatisfactory in all respects 

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Sidney

[False dawn]

17 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said:

I absolutely agree with you. 

 

The regulation as written is completely ambiguous - as demonstrated by numerous different interpretations on here. 

 

The SCB had a perfect chance here to explain its own interpretation, and to provide the evidence to support it. 

 

It has even had to update its own news release to change 'admissable' to 'non-admissable' regarding the appeal. 

Wholly unsatisfactory in all respects 

I think the SCB have poured fuel on the flames of this debate unnecessarily. It is clear from what they say that they considered the interpretation of the said law before deciding it had been breached. Why not just say that the rule contained a degree of ambiguity and undertake to define it better going forward. That would at least give the referee some justification for making the decision that he did. As it is they have implied, at least, that the referee made a clear mistake but the rules don't allow a retrospective change in the result. The referee will now be pilloried when in fact inherent in the SCB statement is the fact that they had to review the rule before reaching the decision that a breach occurred.

The upshot now is that (apart from Poole supporters) there will forever be a massive asterisk against who was the 2026 Championship League Champion.

Edited 4 hours ago by False dawn

[poole keith]

Make it like moto gp or world superbikes (proper motorbike racing)any part of the wheel touches out of bounds part of track results in penalty

[Fromafar]

26 minutes ago, poole keith said:

Make it like moto gp or world superbikes (proper motorbike racing)any part of the wheel touches out of bounds part of track results in penalty

I agree don’t think they should front wheel over the line. That’s what the line is there for, it’s the inside of the track.

[Arthur54]

Perhaps all tracks should have a curb around the inside of the track, would stop any wheels going over the line 

[marko]

12 minutes ago, Arthur54 said:

Perhaps all tracks should have a curb around the inside of the track, would stop any wheels going over the line 

I don't know if the modern rule book says anything about curb height but there used to be something about a maximum height it could be, so that the front wheel could safely cross it without causing an accident.

[SteveLyric2]

BTW how's Jacob Hook?

[Happy Hunter]

Poole should let Scunthorpe have the trophy!