Moving the goalposts (Edition No.12 Nov/Dec 2002)
In her
diary in issue 11 of ‘The Voice’ Annette Maybach
asked if I had any comments on the mid season changes to the rules governing
which riders are eligible for heat 15.
Well
Annette it’s not the first time that rules have been changed in mid season and
I doubt it will be the last other examples being:
In 1959
the first 22 meetings in the league had 18 heats while the other 44 had 15
heats.
In
1997, when the powers that be decided to have 6 man teams, in the second
meeting of the season the Coventry team manager spotted an obvious loophole in
the regulations and allowed his reserve to be excluded under the two minute
rule and be replaced by a rider from the main body of the team. I believe that
this loophole was soon stopped but it did mean that the cup competition that
season was run under two sets of regulations. Imagine this happening in the FA
Cup?
What is
unusual is that this time the rule has been changed or is said to have been
changed on more that one occasion during the season.
The top
scorers/nominated riders race has been around for a number of years and it was
introduced in an attempt to make the last heat a grand finale to the league
meeting and leave fans wanting more.
It has
been in its present format since 1998 when the rules allowed 2 of the top 3
scorers take part. The same rules applied in 1999 but in 2000 the rules were
amended to allow either any of the 3 top scorers or heat leaders to take part.
I believe that this rule was introduced following a south coast team visiting
Belle Vue and not being allowed to use their top
rider in heat 15 as he had fallen in one race so was not amongst the top 3
scorers and their promoter was heard to comment that rule must be changed. The
rules stayed the same until the Sky televised meeting between Eastbourne and
This
raises a number of questions:
Once a
nominated rider has been excluded would it not be better and more in line with
the reasons why the race was introduced for him to be replaced by a rider
eligible to be nominated for the race rather than a reserve?
If Mr
Cook was unhappy with the rules governing who can be nominated to take part in
heat 15, and why since he has had since 1998 to raise these concerns, was a
televised meeting the right place to voice his concerns and what credit did his
actions do himself, his club and more importantly the sport? Surely the right
place to raise objections would have been the annual conference?
Mr
Reeve claims in his letter that the rules, in particular 15.2.7e, allowed Mr
Cook to nominate Clouting for heat without telling Andersson
to sit in the pits until he was excluded and in fact the match referee had made
a mistake. Sorry Mr Reeve I believe the referee was correct by not allowing
Clouting to be nominated for heat 15 according to the rules, in particular the
rule dealing with heat 15 rule 15.2.16
“For heat 15 any two of the top three scorers ….or one of the heat
leaders must be nominated and must take part unless declared
unfit….that rider’s points will be excluded from the calculations when deciding
upon the nominations.”
Whist I
am a Scot who has lived most of my life in Yorkshire and therefore English is a
foreign language to me and it is a number of years since I scrapped a pass in
English Language at O level I believe the words “must be nominated” and “must
take part” mean the referee was right and Mr Cook and Mr Reeve wrong or does
the word must have a different meaning in Eastbourne and SCB speak?
Following
the above events the rules appeared to be amended, but being speedway no formal
announcement was made due to the unwritten rule about not telling people about
rule changes, when at the Exeter v Isle
of Wight meeting on 3rd June
the visitors promoter and team manager told the SCB appointed referee,
Chris Gay, and the Exeter team manager
that the new rules allowed the reserve to have his compulsory third ride in
heat 15 and in view of later developments they
amazingly believed them.
The
Speedway Star dated 8th June reported the events as follows:
“meeting ended controversially when under
a new ruling…..the feeling amongst the home following was that this deprived
the public of an all star finale. Promoter Colin Hill was deeply disgruntled to
learn that a new ruling had been introduced…”
Of
course being speedway everything wasn’t as it seemed as a report about the
“Investigations reveal that there has been no rule change”
From my
sources within the corridors of power that the rules were “reclarified”
in mid June so that now all riders must have their third ride before heat 15
and riders eligible for heat 15 are 2 of the 3 top scorers or any of the
reserves.
Whist I
am just one of the great unwashed on the terraces and maybe should just pay my
money at the gate and not be concerned about the way the sport is run I would
humbly suggest the following should happen before next season to avoid any more
possible embarrassing changes or alleged changes:
i) A committee of experienced
team managers/referees and promoters produce a draft set of rules based on the
chosen race format.
ii) This
draft set of rules is then issued to all team managers, referees and promoters
for their comments regarding possible amendments to avoid confusion or
loopholes, based on their vast experience and knowledge of earlier rules.
iii)
Following receipt of any comments the draft set of rules is then amended as
necessary and the final set of rules issued prior to the season starting. Once
these rules are published there should be no more amendments to the rules other
than for printing errors
iv) Any
suggestions regarding amendments to the rules should be given to the SCB/BSPA
for possible inclusion in the following years
rulebook.
If none
of the above are possible how about telling the team managers, promoters,
referees and even the fans of any mid season
“reclaifications” to the rules to avoid any
more incidents like Exeter or getting the rulebook rewritten so that rules
dealing with the same situation agree with each other.
Charles Mckay – The Star of