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

[Starman2006]

14 minutes ago, Neila said:

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

Just finalising next seasons championship winning side i believe 

[Sir Sidney]

2 minutes ago, lucifer sam said:

Sir Sid (when did you get the knighthood?), both the referee's decision and the SCB statement are "statements of fact"

I'm an imposter obviously. 

But deflection won't help! 

You still haven't said what you believe the SCB statement confirms in detail and how that will be applied in the next occurrence of such a decision that a ref has to make

[lucifer sam]

1 hour ago, Sir Sidney said:

I'm an imposter obviously. 

But deflection won't help! 

You still haven't said what you believe the SCB statement confirms in detail and how that will be applied in the next occurrence of such a decision that a ref has to make

I haven't mention anything about detail. To be honest, the statement is pretty poorly written and could offered more explanation. The original wording even got inadmissible and admissible confused. But having come from the SCB, it is still means it is a 'statement of fact'.  The rule was breached, end of, if the SCB say that it was.

But the SCB statement does say something and I think you've missed it: "Having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached".  Then read rule 012.1.11 and see what the rule does and doesn't say. And don't add in words such as "wholly" or "completely" when you read it. Read ONLY the words in the original rule and see what is written there. And then you'll see from the wording of the rule why it was breached.

Edited 7 hours ago by lucifer sam

[Sir Sidney]

15 minutes ago, lucifer sam said:

I haven't mention anything about detail. To be honest, the statement is pretty poorly written and could offered more explanation. The original wording even got inadmissible and admissible confused. But having come from the SCB, it is still means it is a 'statement of fact'.  The rule was breached, end of, if the SCB say that it was.

But the SCB statement does say something and I think you've missed it: "Having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached".  Then read the rule and see what the rule does and doesn't say. And don't add in words such as "wholly" or "completely" when you read it. Read ONLY the words in the original rule and see what is written there. And then you'll see from the wording of the rule why it was breached.

Thanks for that. We are getting somewhere! We both agree that the statement is poorly written (and wasn't well proof read before its initial issue).

I have read the regulation a number of times. As the regulations don't include the words 'wholly' or 'completely', or indeed any other similar words, then any interpretation is just that - an interpretation.

The relevant regulations also do not include the word 'tyre' (the only part which is contact with the track) nor say which part of the wheel has to cross the inner edge to constitute a disqualification (given that no part of the wheel is in touch with the track or inner edge.

As you say - read ONLY the words in the original rule (regulation). The SCB could end this at a stroke, by giving more information and evidence on how it reached its decision. I'll bet the relevant regulations are amended for next season

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Sidney

[mikebv]

2 hours 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.

But it isn't a statement of fact. 

And that is the issue ..

No "factual" evidence has been seen or published, therefore the SCB shouldn't have come out saying that the rules were breached as, clearly so far, there is zero evidence to prove that "fact"... 

The ref made his decision based on the (inconclusive) evidence that showed that Cook "could" have ridden the white line and not crossed it..

Using the evidence available to him, he made the only decision he could, and should have... 

The SCB statement is, apart from how poorly written it is, quite baffling, and subjective, so not factual, and leaves both Pooles' victory, and the ref hanging out to dry somewhat...

 

[Roger Jacobs]

On 10/14/2026 at 7:06 PM, 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

Your wording was "both wheels had gone on  the line".

Also, you've ignored the point I've made about the SCB Regulation being ambiguous. It doesn't say "both wheels at the same time", nor does it say clearly what constitutes the wheel(s) crossing the line.

The ambiguity of the Regulation is exactly (ironically) why there has been so much debate, and why the referee made the decision, which - according to others with a different view of the ambiguity - was wrong.

This latest SCB shambles proves that they must have been the brains behind VAR.

 

[TigerIain]

An update to the relevant rule has been issued by the SCB today:

"Registration No. 134679 England VAT No. 238 5704 48 Registered Office: A.C.U. House Wood Street Rugby CV21 2YX E: info@scbgb.co.uk

Amendment to Regulation 12.1.11

Date Issued: 15/10/2026

Regulation No: 12.1.11

Subject: Leaving the Track

Addition to current wording of 12.1.11

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