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

[Arthur54]

17 minutes ago, Starman2006 said:

So many sour grape chewers on here trying to convince themselves that Zack had both wheels over the white line its untrue, next you will have Trackprat saying he rode across the centre green . Have a day off. 😂😂

He seems to have vanished probably still trying to get over Poole winning the league 

[False dawn]

18 minutes ago, Starman2006 said:

So many sour grape chewers on here trying to convince themselves that Zack had both wheels over the white line its untrue, next you will have Trackprat saying he rode across the centre green . Have a day off. 😂😂

We don't have to convince ourselves of anything. The SCB have said he did.

[TigerIain]

[foreverblue]

9 hours ago, TigerIain said:

Very funny but you could have spelt Zach right!

[Arthur54]

22 minutes ago, foreverblue said:

Very funny but you could have spelt Zach right!

Looks like Kyle under the helmet 🤣

[TigerIain]

🤷‍♂️ It could be anyone, it was a purely AI generated image with Zach autocorrected to Zack, I didn't pick the image.

AI has just went for a Poole rider and written Zach Cook on them to pass it off as Zach! Tbh Richard Lawson is the only Pirates rider that I might recognise if I walked by them in the street so I just went with it

[AFCB Wildcat]

57 minutes ago, TigerIain said:

🤷‍♂️ It could be anyone, it was a purely AI generated image with Zach autocorrected to Zack, I didn't pick the image.

AI has just went for a Poole rider and written Zach Cook on them to pass it off as Zach! 

Thanks for clearing that up.

Could you relay that information directly to the SCB though please?  It seems that the joke went over their heads and they may have taken your image at face value before making their statement.😁

[Starman2006]

22 hours ago, False dawn said:

We don't have to convince ourselves of anything. The SCB have said he did.

Maybe they need to make a visitation to specsavers. Ref watched the replay a minimum of five times, even in slow mo. No case to answer. Won it on merit 

[AFCB Wildcat]

1 hour ago, Starman2006 said:

Maybe they need to make a visitation to specsavers. Ref watched the replay a minimum of five times, even in slow mo. No case to answer. Won it on merit 

Inconclusive at best. 

I wouldn't want to bet either way on if the wheel was over tbh, but innocent till proven guilty & there wasn't definitive proof available to exclude him.

 

[False dawn]

10 minutes ago, AFCB Wildcat said:

Inconclusive at best. 

I wouldn't want to bet either way on if the wheel was over tbh, but innocent till proven guilty & there wasn't definitive proof available to exclude him.

 

The SCB, the ruling body, says otherwise.

[LisaColette]

9 minutes ago, False dawn said:

The SCB, the ruling body, says otherwise.

Actually no. The SCB are saying it is on the line and should be excluded. It looks like the ref and other fans are saying he shouldn't have been excluded as he didn't go 'over' the line. 

Different interpretations that fans could talk about all winter and still not agree! 

[False dawn]

Just now, LisaColette said:

Actually no. The SCB are saying it is on the line and should be excluded. It looks like the ref and other fans are saying he shouldn't have been excluded as he didn't go 'over' the line. 

Different interpretations that fans could talk about all winter and still not agree! 

No interpretation...
"Having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached"
Seems clear enough.

[LisaColette]

8 minutes ago, False dawn said:

No interpretation...
"Having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached"
Seems clear enough.

Ok. Maybe i need to be more clear.

1. SCB are saying front wheel over the line and rear wheel on the line is excluded.

2. Ref did it on basis of being over the line imo. Otherwise he would have excluded Zach. This is where interpretation is different. Maybe they should write things better so no misunderstanding.

3. Two other refs have apparently said they wouldn't have excluded Zach either.

4. Josh Pickering even David Howe DID NOT KNOW before superheat that rear wheel on the white line meant exclusion. (360 podcast).

5. Imo they only looked through rules because superheat went against them. If they won superheat, rules wouldn't have been looked at and nothing said or known. 

 

[AFCB Wildcat]

31 minutes ago, LisaColette said:

Actually no. The SCB are saying it is on the line and should be excluded. It looks like the ref and other fans are saying he shouldn't have been excluded as he didn't go 'over' the line. 

Different interpretations that fans could talk about all winter and still not agree! 

So you're saying that the SCB have a different interpretation of the rules than the officials that oversee them?? 

It gets worse! 🫣

[False dawn]

12 minutes ago, LisaColette said:

Ok. Maybe i need to be more clear.

1. SCB are saying front wheel over the line and rear wheel on the line is excluded.

2. Ref did it on basis of being over the line imo. Otherwise he would have excluded Zach. This is where interpretation is different. Maybe they should write things better so no misunderstanding.

3. Two other refs have apparently said they wouldn't have excluded Zach either.

4. Josh Pickering even David Howe DID NOT KNOW before superheat that rear wheel on the white line meant exclusion. (360 podcast).

5. Imo they only looked through rules because superheat went against them. If they won superheat, rules wouldn't have been looked at and nothing said or known. 

 

Point 1. The SCB never said this.
They said that the rule was breached. No ifs, no buts. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone says or interprets what was said, the rule was breached. The only reason the result stands is because of rule SCB Regulation 018.1.2 a) which says the announced result on the night can't be overturned after the fact. Poole won on a technicality. 

[Neila]

38 minutes ago, LisaColette said:

Ok. Maybe i need to be more clear.

1. SCB are saying front wheel over the line and rear wheel on the line is excluded.

2. Ref did it on basis of being over the line imo. Otherwise he would have excluded Zach. This is where interpretation is different. Maybe they should write things better so no misunderstanding.

3. Two other refs have apparently said they wouldn't have excluded Zach either.

4. Josh Pickering even David Howe DID NOT KNOW before superheat that rear wheel on the white line meant exclusion. (360 podcast).

5. Imo they only looked through rules because superheat went against them. If they won superheat, rules wouldn't have been looked at and nothing said or known. 

 

You can quote as many steps as you want Lisa, but in both legs of the play offs Poole cheated, end of 😜😄

[False dawn]

2 minutes ago, Neila said:

You can quote as many steps as you want Lisa, but in both legs of the play offs Poole cheated, end of 😜😄

For my part, I'll repeat that I don't consider what Zach did was cheating. The SCB say he broke the rules. That's not the same thing.

What happened in the first leg was an entirely different thing. Not that we hear any denials about that incident.

[SteveLyric2]

Gawd 37 pages now. Even Rob Godfrey and David Howe have stated that Poole didn't cheat!

Maybe mods can close the thread now?! In the meantime, must get some more trophy polish ready for the End of Season Party.😃

[alang]

1 minute ago, SteveLyric2 said:

Gawd 37 pages now. Even Rob Godfrey and David Howe have stated that Poole didn't cheat!

Maybe mods can close the thread now?! In the meantime, must get some more trophy polish ready for the End of Season Party.😃

It's ok. You'll only need 2/3 of a tin

[mikebv]

9 hours ago, AFCB Wildcat said:

Thanks for clearing that up.

Could you relay that information directly to the SCB though please?  It seems that the joke went over their heads and they may have taken your image at face value before making their statement.😁

Irrefutable Evidence...😁