Sports Car Club of America are idiots!

[Lee Janotta]

http://www.crash.net/news_detail.asp...&language_id=1

Read the part about being immediatly excluded for questioning an official's decision.

Did we lose a war? Because apparently there are Nazis running our rally sanction.

[Liz]

He didn't mention circus clowns did he?

[Lee Janotta]

Sad fact is he'd be right if he did! There are two kinds of people in power in the SCCA these days: Incompetent and uninspired.

All the others got sick and left.

"Y'know, this Production GT class is letting people run in _real_ rally cars at a quarter of the price of a Group N car... We'd better relegate it to club events only!"

"Can we replace it with Super 1600?"

"Are you crazy??? Our events could be flooded with talented, young, professional drivers! Do you really want that?!"

"But the rest of the FIA is supporting the class. Aren't we still part of the FIA?"

"SHHHH! Do you want everybody to hear?!"

[imull]

he broke the rules he paid the penalty...

maybe not fair but right.

[Lee Janotta]

That's a pretty uninspired way to look at it.

Actually, I was complaining about the idea that there _is_ such a rule, not the fact that the rule was applied.

[imull]

AS I understand it, he was speeding.

I am also assuming that rallies in AMerica run to the same system as here in the UK where when you clock out of service you are given a set number of minutes to reach the special stage start (here its set at average speed of 30mph). The fact that he was late out of service should thereofre cause no ned to break teh local traffic laws.
These rules aare there basically to stop rallying upsetting the locals and creaating dangerous situationsn that will bring the sport into disrepute.

I know its uninspired but its the harsh reality (assuming american rallies run to the same format).

[Lee Janotta]

I don't disagree with _that_ rule... It's the one that you can't even _question_ the decision of an official. That's just plain facist.

[boyracer]

You have to have that sort of rule to stop the idiots in the sport.
As in australia, a CAM's steward may exclude a car from an event if they deem it to be unsafe.
No explanation needed for it to be excluded, you can dream up whatever excuse you like.
The point is that there are instances when this rule needs to be applied. The problem lies with the person who is applying the rules, and if the driver annoyed the stewards enough, it would be enough for me to exclude him.
The rules are there for a reason. And if the driver did not like the decision he is allowed to appeal.

[Lee Janotta]

Yeah, an appeal does a fat lot of good when you're excluded from the event. They should have allowed him to run under appeal.

Sorry but there's no excuse for giving officials such broad and poorly defined powers to alter an event's outcome.

It's some rule to have in a country that prides itself on embracing freedom of speech.

And I hardly think Milner qualifies as an idiot.

[JohnSSC]

But as they say, that does not give you the right to yell: "Fire!" in a crowded theater! Without the teeth in the regs the organizers of any event are destined to lose control. Doesn't matter in what sport. I agree though that the penalty for questioning an official could have been more judiciously applied.

But without "ultimate power," who would respect the race steward and their decisions?

[Lee Janotta]

That ultimate power should be applied after the event... You can take away a driver's points and prize money after the fact, but you can't do anything if they're excluded from an event due to a bad call.

SCCA officials last year gave a driver in a Trans-Am race a stop-and-go penalty after mistaking his Mangusta for a Corvette which was a completely different shade of yellow, and have prominent black patches in the paint scheme which the Mangusta did not.

[boyracer]

A penalty applied after the event can work well sometimes.
However there are times when it would not.
V8 supercars have adopted a rule whereby a car is given a stop-go penalty (drive thru the pits, stop and then go) for an infringement. The CAM's manual says 1 minute should be added to their lap time. AVESCO (controllong body of V8 supercars) thought this was confusing for the TV viewers 'coz you didn't know who was actually winning.
Same problem as before exists though, cars have been brought in for a stop-go, only for the judges-of-fact to turn around and say 'it wasn't that car, musta been car 54'
Of course there is no way the driver can make back up that time and no chance of appealing the decision.
Ok thats for your argument, and now the against.
(Not knowing all the facts, some assumptions are made).
It would appear that our driver was speeding, ok so he is now charged by the officials but appeals and continues the rally. In the next liason he is still speeding (why would a steward bother charging him then, and considering that everyone else starts to speed) Over the top ? You have to really think about it. But back to the story, our driver is happily speeding along public roads used for the liason and collides with a member of the public. Is the stewards decision too harsh now ? There is no use warning someone, as that doesn't stop the problem, immediate action is the only way to avert a potential disaster. As I say I don't know all the facts, but the situation is still a good representation of what could happen. And there is no use in sitting back and saying 'well yeah, but the probability of it happeing are really small...'. IT CAN STILL HAPPEN.
Not only does speeding endanger the life of members of the public, but it endangers the life of motorsport, because it taints the public perception. Which in many places in the world is not that good anyway.
The stewards decision, Harsh ? Yes. Understandable ? Warranted ? Expected of the steward ? DEFINITELY !!!

[DAVID PATERSON]

Lee, I'm not sure I fully understood your original post and I think a few others may be in the same boat.

Was the driver excluded from the event for speeding or was he excluded for questioning the official's decision?

[Lee Janotta]

He was excluded for questioning the official's decision.

His first penalty was for being late leaving service, that cost him 14 minutes.

Speeding on the road earned him a further 10 minutes.

But questioning an official's decision got him tossed from the event altogether.

If he'd been tossed for speeding on the road, _then_ I could understand it!

[imull]

does anyone know what he said:

"aww come one, wont do it again..."
"go get a life you little bas*ard. Go and teach hitler a thing or two more w"£$%r..."