Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2007 10:37:33 GMT
I didn't think it was that bad, you can't compare the atmosphere on the TV to watching it live anyway, especially when it's a big meeting like it was...I'm just glad Swindon won and nicked the bonus ( yes,even as a Coventry fan!)..I want a Swindon v Coventry final... ;D
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 9, 2007 19:26:58 GMT
What was wrong with heat 7? Made perfect sense to me. Moore was still racing to get past because Iversen was sticking behind Swiderski and the Pole was very slow. Iversen laid the bike down to avoid him from what I saw. A re-run was the only real course of action. If it was awarded it would, presumably, have been as a 4-2 to Swindon, but with Iversen on the deck it could have been as a Swindon 5-1, which wouldn't have been fair. Perfectly reasonable decision. Yes, perhaps, but both Swales and Rosco have a habit of arguing with perfectly reasonable decisions regarding re-runs of races stopped due to a falling rider. Personally, I thought Iversen was on his way down of his own accord. But in all honesty a re-run with just the three riders or an awarded 4-2 would've been fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by stuartroad on Aug 9, 2007 20:57:38 GMT
What was wrong with heat 7? Made perfect sense to me. Moore was still racing to get past because Iversen was sticking behind Swiderski and the Pole was very slow. Iversen laid the bike down to avoid him from what I saw. A re-run was the only real course of action. If it was awarded it would, presumably, have been as a 4-2 to Swindon, but with Iversen on the deck it could have been as a Swindon 5-1, which wouldn't have been fair. Perfectly reasonable decision. Yes, perhaps, but both Swales and Rosco have a habit of arguing with perfectly reasonable decisions regarding re-runs of races stopped due to a falling rider. Personally, I thought Iversen was on his way down of his own accord. But in all honesty a re-run with just the three riders or an awarded 4-2 would've been fair enough. iversen did go down of his own accord,the ref at the reading eastbourne match,would have made that a 0-5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 8:45:40 GMT
Funny you should say that as it was the same ref as the reading eastbourne meeting, a Mr Dave Watters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 9:26:38 GMT
Personally, I thought Iversen was on his way down of his own accord. But in all honesty a re-run with just the three riders or an awarded 4-2 would've been fair enough. Looking at the rules, I don't think a race can be awarded as a 4-2 unless the riders were on the final lap.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Aug 10, 2007 9:35:35 GMT
Looking at the rules, I don't think a race can be awarded as a 4-2 unless the riders were on the final lap. Graham, It can be awarded as long as the first lap has been completed by all competitors and the fallen rider is in last place at the time of the stoppage (or in third ahead of their team-mate), which they normally are by the time the red lights come on. Correct call by the ref, though, second place was a long way from settled at the time of the stoppage, so it was only right to re-run the race. Was disappointed not to see Rosco on the phone - doesn't he know it's obligatory for him to make a prat of himself during Sky matches (such as "the worst decision ever" at Belle Vue earlier in the season!!). Would have added a bit of entertainment to a match that came across as drab on the tele. All the best Rob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 10:19:06 GMT
Graham, It can be awarded as long as the first lap has been completed by all competitors and the fallen rider is in last place at the time of the stoppage (or in third ahead of their team-mate), which they normally are by the time the red lights come on. It is, in true speedway tradition, slightly ambiguous in the rule book. It says: 15.9.7 In a Team Event, if an excluded Competitor was occupying either a) last place or b) 3rd place with his partner in 4th place when the race was caused to be stopped and all four Competitors had completed a full lap, the Referee shall have the discretion to award the result of the race based upon the position of the Competitors at that time. I'd say that's open to interpretation. You could say that it's the incident itself that caused the race to be stopped, or you could say it's the riders not getting up that caused the race to be stopped, or you could say it's the ref putting the lights on that caused the race to be stopped. I took it to mean that Iversen laying his bike down caused the race to be stopped.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Aug 10, 2007 10:28:04 GMT
Grachan, Don't ya just love the rulebook? I'm starting to wonder if it's deliberately ambigious, so it gives us somrthing to discuss All the best Rob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 10:51:59 GMT
Grachan, Don't ya just love the rulebook? I'm starting to wonder if it's deliberately ambigious, so it gives us somrthing to discuss All the best Rob If it is, then it's a work of genius! Where would we be if everything was straight forward? We'd be lost.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 10, 2007 11:42:24 GMT
I took it to mean that Iversen laying his bike down caused the race to be stopped. As I've said, that's a very generous intepretation of the incident, as far as I'm concerned. Iversen, in my mind, was already on his way down and fell completely independent of Swiderski. So, if the referee had awarded a 5:0 I wouldn't have complained, but obviously the golem Swales would've done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 11:49:08 GMT
It's possible I guess, but in a situation like that I think you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the following rider. I reckon he came off as a result of Swiderski falling anyway. Even if he didn't lay it down deliberately.
|
|