Telling Dave Shires that he'd definitely won then was told there was going to be a re weigh was distgusting . Life changing money and such a prestigious event, it was a farce. Well done to Dave for keeping his cool. Great match
The difference in the total end weight, compared to the accumulated total of the ½ hourly weights, is significant. This match was for £50k and I understand that the discrepancy was almost 2kg. As a match secretary for many years I have weighed in hundreds of matches, and to do so accurately is extremely difficult. I have had competitors tip the bricks they used to anchor their nets into the weigh bag. An un vigilant scales-man might miss this and even if noticed it is claimed to be accidental by the angler. I have seen organisers 'zero' the scales in their favour. I have seen the scales-man 'zero' the scales in favour of a mate. I have seen anglers soaking their whole net under water and pulling it out at the last minute knowing that the extra water gives them a few extra ounces. I have seen scales-men delay calling the weight, knowing that the longer they delay, the drier (and lighter) the net will weigh. On some canal matches the difference between winning and otherwise is drams, not ounces. And we still get people weighing 'on the bounce' where they call the average between the high and low readings. Those digital scales will do that automatically, and if you don’t believe me take a weight, wait a minute and take another. You will not get the same result. The fish bouncing makes it almost impossible. The Fisho style of weighing in just multiplies the opportunities for error, fraud and collusion. I don’t trust it, it doesn’t follow a clear protocol, and I will GUARANTEE to you that somewhere along the line there is cheating going on. For £50k there are anglers who will do anything. Organisers too are not necessarily to be trusted. It’s always clear if there is a big weight difference but when it is close it is SO unfair to call the result one way or the other.
1st time ive watched fishomania thought it was good , until that marsden bloke , asked for a reweigh which made a lot of bad blood, and it made him look foolish in the end , as it went from a 100gs to nearly 2kg winning gap
The fact the re-weigh changed so much, even though not in his favour, shows the poor quality of weigh ins and dodgy / different calibrated scales for each section. If you were very concerned you had not heen weighed in properly, would you not want to ask for a re-weigh in such a massive competition and with so much on the line!!!!
Think about it a little......you have explained the very reason why a re-weigh was necessary. It could quite easily have been 2kg the other way around. Doh!
Telling Dave Shires that he'd definitely won then was told there was going to be a re weigh was distgusting . Life changing money and such a prestigious event, it was a farce.
Well done to Dave for keeping his cool.
Great match
Well done dave on the win,outstanding achievement
Great video but that repetitive music was doing my brain in.
WELL DONE DAVE
The difference in the total end weight, compared to the accumulated total of the ½ hourly weights, is significant. This match was for £50k and I understand that the discrepancy was almost 2kg. As a match secretary for many years I have weighed in hundreds of matches, and to do so accurately is extremely difficult. I have had competitors tip the bricks they used to anchor their nets into the weigh bag. An un vigilant scales-man might miss this and even if noticed it is claimed to be accidental by the angler. I have seen organisers 'zero' the scales in their favour. I have seen the scales-man 'zero' the scales in favour of a mate. I have seen anglers soaking their whole net under water and pulling it out at the last minute knowing that the extra water gives them a few extra ounces. I have seen scales-men delay calling the weight, knowing that the longer they delay, the drier (and lighter) the net will weigh. On some canal matches the difference between winning and otherwise is drams, not ounces. And we still get people weighing 'on the bounce' where they call the average between the high and low readings. Those digital scales will do that automatically, and if you don’t believe me take a weight, wait a minute and take another. You will not get the same result. The fish bouncing makes it almost impossible. The Fisho style of weighing in just multiplies the opportunities for error, fraud and collusion. I don’t trust it, it doesn’t follow a clear protocol, and I will GUARANTEE to you that somewhere along the line there is cheating going on. For £50k there are anglers who will do anything. Organisers too are not necessarily to be trusted. It’s always clear if there is a big weight difference but when it is close it is SO unfair to call the result one way or the other.
If it was only 100g diff, then a re-weigh should be mandatory.
what do they reweigh? are the fish not returned after each weigh in?
There are retainer nets for all anglers
Could have put the weights up
Shame Gary Rogers demanded a reweigh - should never have happened
is paste banned from fisho ?
No
Does anyone know where the full rules can be read? I’ve looked all over the FOM website.
1st time ive watched fishomania thought it was good , until that marsden bloke , asked for a reweigh which made a lot of bad blood, and it made him look foolish in the end , as it went from a 100gs to nearly 2kg winning gap
The fact the re-weigh changed so much, even though not in his favour, shows the poor quality of weigh ins and dodgy / different calibrated scales for each section. If you were very concerned you had not heen weighed in properly, would you not want to ask for a re-weigh in such a massive competition and with so much on the line!!!!
Think about it a little......you have explained the very reason why a re-weigh was necessary. It could quite easily have been 2kg the other way around. Doh!