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

[AFCB Wildcat]

4 hours ago, marko said:

2026 is done and dusted, all that’s important now is that the refs are aware than if the front wheel is over, it only needs the back tyre to be touching the white line to be enough to warrant an exclusion, so we never have to go through this again.

Isn't it amazing, that after all these years of British speedway, the referees (or anyone else for that matter) weren't aware of this interpretation of the rule? Well....unless it's just recently been made up of course.

You have to say, it's a bit odd that the Speedway Star, backed up by 2 referees with over 20 years experience including at FIM level, published a completely different version of the rule. 

Is this new interpretation just for 2027 though? or is it subject to change if a BSPA representative in the SCB finds that it doesn't suit their team in next seasons playoffs? 

The whole debacle is frankly embarrassing.

 

 

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by AFCB Wildcat

[martinmauger]

8 hours ago, LisaColette said:

It is in the rules that they can correct a genuine mistake. They just can't exclude a rider the ref decided not to. 

Typed while supposed to be working (!) didn't explain as well as I shoulda, the SCB seemed to admit the ref made a mistake not excluding Cook, but since result was announced, it can't be changed....

[mikebv]

8 hours ago, marko said:

2026 is done and dusted, all that’s important now is that the refs are aware than if the front wheel is over, it only needs the back tyre to be touching the white line to be enough to warrant an exclusion, so we never have to go through this again.

Is that the rule?..

I thought it was now both wheels over the inside line?..

But then again, I always did think that was the rule given it was always quoted on TV when it came close to happenng, or actually did..

In the piece in the Speedway Star, Neil Vatcher said he didn't want to disclose those on the panel who said Cook had "breached the rule"...

Why not? If it had been me who had decided he had done it, with zero other evidence than the ref had, then I would want my "vision superpower" to be known to all..!!

 

[daz9100]

8 hours ago, mikebv said:

In the piece in the Speedway Star, Neil Vatcher said he didn't want to disclose those on the panel who said Cook had "breached the rule"...

Why not? If it had been me who had decided he had done it, with zero other evidence than the ref had, then I would want my "vision superpower" to be known to all..!!

 

Surely not the promoter of Scunthorpe, as surely that would be a conflict of interests 🤣

[AFCB Wildcat]

I've just read Neil Vatchers response in the Star and found it all very confusing at first. That is, I couldn't understand how, after confirming the definition of the rule to be that both wheels have to be fully over the inner edge of the line, he then went on to say that it was never the intention to throw the referee under the bus by saying that the rule was breached.
Then, after reading Godfreys deluded ramblings at the end of the article, the penny dropped. Godfrey is using the clerical error made when copying the FIM rule, where they  missed the word 'marking', to justify him being able to make up his own version.
So as I read Vatchers comments, where he says that the statement was about the wording of the rule & not the referee's decision, it seems that as a gesture of appeasment to Godfrey, they have acknowledged that the clerical error had allowed him to interperate the 'as written' rule differently to its intended definition.
Thus they are saying that it was Godfreys definition of the rule that was breached and not that the referee, who applied the rule correctly had made a mistake, so the wording of the rule has been changed to avoid further confusion.

[Fortythirtyeight]

and that’s the two blokes who run are beloved sport !

[Fromafar]

16 hours ago, AFCB Wildcat said:

Isn't it amazing, that after all these years of British speedway, the referees (or anyone else for that matter) weren't aware of this interpretation of the rule? Well....unless it's just recently been made up of course.

You have to say, it's a bit odd that the Speedway Star, backed up by 2 referees with over 20 years experience including at FIM level, published a completely different version of the rule. 

Is this new interpretation just for 2027 though? or is it subject to change if a BSPA representative in the SCB finds that it doesn't suit their team in next seasons playoffs? 

The whole debacle is frankly embarrassing.

 

 

 

 

Would agree, what an embarrassment for what is meant to be a Professional Organisation .

[mikebv]

1 hour ago, Fromafar said:

Would agree, what an embarrassment for what is meant to be a Professional Organisation .

The best part for me was when Neil Vatcher said in the "clarification statement" that what they actually meant by the first statement didnt come across like they intended..

Brilliant!!!

There's some fair old reasons for the last two decades of decline in Speedway isn't there??..

And it certainly isn't just down to Poland, the GP's and developers is it?...

I am looking forward to next weeks Speedway Star where we might read the "clarification of the clarification statement"...

The sport definitely needs an "emotionally intellectual dictator" who signs off, as professional and fit for purpose, pretty much every bit of communication that comes out, and strategises the operating and business plan...