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

[Sir Sidney]

22 hours ago, Paul Johnson said:

Thats what replays are for,to help the referee.And its been explained that both wheels had gone on  the line he therefore left the track.

 

1 hour ago, Paul Johnson said:

Cooks front wheel was well on th grass,as soon as his back wheel crossed the inner part of the white line he went off track

So even you have given two different explanations.

Did he leave the track if both wheels were 'on the line', or if his 'back wheel has crossed the inner part of the white line' ?

It just demonstrates that there is ambiguity, and, as yet, you haven't provided any evidence from SCB of where any of your interpretations come from. 

I'm not intending to pick on your interpretations specifically, because many others have put their own views forward. 

SCB could clarify this immediately if it wanted to. 

I hope that the referee, both clubs and all riders are absolutely clear on the interpretation for the Premiership play off second leg, especially as Belle Vue's inner edge of the track is significantly different to a chalk line

[Wild Man Vic]

The rules definitely need clarified.

BUT, if the white line was a kerb then the track would end at the outer edge of the kerb, so therefore if the kerb was a white line the track should end at the outer edge of the white line to keep everything the same!

Just a thought!

[AFCB Wildcat]

On 10/13/2026 at 7:36 PM, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

In Speedway the line belongs to the infield - on the line is off the track and should result in exclusion 

Stream Motorsports

 

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.

Edited 13 hours ago by AFCB Wildcat

[r8gdp]

What a farce speedway will never lose its Micky mouse image. Wonder if the roles we reversed the ref would have made the same decision .The whole thing as left speedway looking very second rate and not looking like a professional sport .

Just my opinion 

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

10 hours ago, AFCB Wildcat said:

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.

On that basis theres nothing to stop the line being a metre wide and by your definition being on it would still be on track...

I'd say its quite clear - the chalk marks the inner edge of the track surface

Therefore the track ends as soon as the line starts

[Gavan]

1 hour ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

On that basis theres nothing to stop the line being a metre wide and by your definition being on it would still be on track...

I'd say its quite clear - the chalk marks the inner edge of the track surface

Therefore the track ends as soon as the line starts

I’ve said this numerous times but there is none so blind as those who can’t see

The rear tyre does not have to be over the line just on the line 

As you say maybe tracks will make the white line as wide as they want too in that case 

[AFCB Wildcat]

1 hour ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

On that basis theres nothing to stop the line being a metre wide and by your definition being on it would still be on track...

I'd say its quite clear - the chalk marks the inner edge of the track surface

Therefore the track ends as soon as the line starts

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? 

[Sir Sidney]

5 minutes ago, Gavan said:

I’ve said this numerous times but there is none so blind as those who can’t see

The rear tyre does not have to be over the line just on the line 

As you say maybe tracks will make the white line as wide as they want too in that case 

So let's assume for the moment that the boundary is the side of the white line next to the track.

How much of the tyre has to be on the line to constitute crossing? All of it, or 1mm? ( Also bearing in mind that a chalk line is acceptable and so may not be sharp, and the regulations don't even use the term tyre). 

All that definition does is moves the decision a bit to the right. 

I have no doubt the regulations will be re-written over the winter, and may well include a better definition of the inner edge of the track and width of line. 

This will just continue to rumble on unless the SCB makes a further statement confirming the detail of its decision. 

[AFCB Wildcat]

8 minutes ago, Gavan said:

I’ve said this numerous times but there is none so blind as those who can’t see

The rear tyre does not have to be over the line just on the line 

As you say maybe tracks will make the white line as wide as they want too in that case 

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.

 

[lucifer sam]

5 minutes ago, AFCB Wildcat said:

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.

 

Why are you continuing to argue this?  

Scunthorpe didn't agree with the referee's decision on the night, but have now said it's time to move on.

If you don't agree with the SCB statement, maybe it's time for you to do the same.

[Sir Sidney]

5 minutes ago, AFCB Wildcat said:

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.

 

The fact is that the regulations relating to this are very poorly written and completely ambiguous 

Your point about the inner edge is well made. 

The part of the wheels that have to cross the inner edge ( however that is defined) is not stated. No part of the wheel is actually in contact with the inner edge - the tyre is, and that is not even mentioned. What about the part of the wheel which is closest to the main part of the bike, and which will cross the line before the part of the tyre touching the line will?

In whichever definition is accepted then how much of the tyre / wheel must cross the line? 1mm or the whole tyre / wheel in touch with the line. 

You can come up with any number of definitions.

All the SCB needs to do is evidence its decision. Presumably referee training must cover that and should be able to be evidenced? If it can't be then that alone demonstrates an ambiguity

[Sir Sidney]

6 minutes ago, lucifer sam said:

Why are you continuing to argue this?  

Scunthorpe didn't agree with the referee's decision on the night, but have now said it's time to move on.

If you don't agree with the SCB statement, maybe it's time for you to do the same.

People don't move on because the SCB has not properly explained its decision.

So when a similar issue occurs ( and its not beyond the realms of possibility it will happen tomorrow) we will have the same argument again.

[AFCB Wildcat]

2 minutes ago, lucifer sam said:

Why are you continuing to argue this?  

Scunthorpe didn't agree with the referee's decision on the night, but have now said it's time to move on.

If you don't agree with the SCB statement, maybe it's time for you to do the same.

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.

[lucifer sam]

7 minutes ago, AFCB Wildcat said:

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.

No, I don't expect you to accept people's unsubstantiated opinions.

But you seem to be getting confused. The SCB statement is not an unsubstantiated opinion. It's a statement of fact, just as the decision of the referee on the night is a statement of fact. 

You can't argue against facts.

Edited 1 hour ago by lucifer sam

[Sir Sidney]

34 minutes ago, lucifer sam said:

No, I don't expect you to accept people's unsubstantiated opinions.

But you seem to be getting confused. The SCB statement is not an unsubstantiated opinion. It's a statement of fact, just as the decision of the referee on the night is a statement of fact. 

You can't argue against facts.

So, just as a reminder, the SCB statement says

'Following the 2nd Leg of the Championship Play Off Final on Wednesday 7th October 2026 between Poole and Scunthorpe, the Scunthorpe club lodged an appeal against the decision of the result of the Super Heat, where it was alleged that Poole Rider Zach Cook had breached SCB Regulation -

 

• 012.1.11 Leaving the Track

 

A rider whose machine crosses the inner edge of the track with 2 wheels must be disqualified unless, in the opinion of the Referee, the action was taken in the interests of safety for other riders or the rider involved was forced off course by another rider.

 

Having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached, however due to the result being announced this was now a Statement of Fact and any appeal is inadmissible as per SCB Regulation 018.1.2 a)

 

Therefore, the result stands as declared, and the Scunthorpe Promotion have accepted the decision.'

So, what fact has the SCB declared? 

'A rider whose machine crosses the inner edge of the track with 2 wheels must be disqualified unless, in the opinion of the Referee, the action was taken in the interests of safety for other riders or the rider involved was forced off course by another rider.'

It has therefore confirmed that the machine crossed the inner edge of the track with two wheels. As it hasn't said how it has arrived at that conclusion it may well be that it decided that both wheels were over the centre green side of the inner edge. 

The reality is that you can't conclude what fact has been decided upon from that statement. 

If you have a different statement that validates your version of the facts I'd be very happy to see it. 

You also say 'You can't argue against facts' despite that being exactly what the SCB has done by saying the referee got it wrong despite it being a 'statement of fact' which makes an appeal inadmissible 

 

[Neila]

Any news on the statement from the Poole management as mentioned in today's speedway star 🤔