A Letter to the Editor

[bigwayne]

As an unpartisan observer of motorsport in general, I find it very strange that there have been so many controversial results across the board.

The more high profile controversies, Indy 500 & Austrian GP, have been done to death however there is a more insidious problem bubbling under the surface in some of the more junior formulae.

As an example take the strange decisions that have occurred in the British F3 championship. Disqualification and then subsequent re-instatement, blatant rule bending, discovery of ‘old’ rules and of course the strange selective application of the rules.

It is not hard to find clear examples of each of these ‘irregularities’. Robbie Kerr was disqualified from a win on the road at Silverstone before eventually being re-instated. Rule bending can be more subjective to spot however the most obvious case was at the single very wet race at Croft where Courtney ran the entire race with the Rain light clearly not functioning.

The discovery of an old rule revolving around the use of the red flag at Oulton Park is a classic. Ask anyone who knows anything about motorsport and in the result of a race being shorten via a red flag the result is taken as being that of the lap before it was stopped. Now we discover a rule that supersedes this. How long has this rule been in place as surely it should be retrospectively applied?

The easiest to spot is the selective application of the rules. I have personally seen the same drivers jump the start the majority of F3 races this season yet it was only at Castle Combe that we saw drivers penalised for creeping on the grid.

Who is responsible for the implementation of the rules? That is the job of the clerk of the course, who has for all but one round of the 2002 British F3 championship been the same person, Denis Carter.

Billed as a highly respected effect official, the appointment of a permanent Clerk of the Course for the F3 season seems on paper like a good call by BMP/FOTA, however his execution of his responsibilities has clearly been lacking and sloppy to the extent that the accusations of bias and worse have already started to surface.

So what should happen? Well their needs to be an independent inquiry into the results of ALL races this season where Mr Carter has been in charge to establish if we are really looking at.

This is vital as in with the British F3 championship being one of the routes to F1 that the results are unequivocal and untainted.

[rlinter]

As an unpartisan observer

Interesting is anyone really unpartisan? I doubt it.. However you do make a couple of acute observations the question is how long will this post be allowed to exist b4 it get 'moderated'

[bella]

can anyone be consistent in the application of rules? in the end it's down to personal views.

it's true to say that so far this season penalties and rules have been applied inconsistently. in a lot of cases though, it can be put down to one team being more astute and thinking round a situation before another one does, eg. a team manager in autosport this week suggested he was slow off the mark protesting something. a clever brain can apply any rule to any situation, and you'll find similar inconsistencies in courts of law.

[Jonny Apex]

It does also depend on what facts are at the CoC's (judge's) disposal within a certain timeframe should a team choose to protest or appeal, ie. the CoC needs to rely on the observers who are not permanently fixed to one championship.

I don't think CoC's go bending the rules in any particular team or driver's favour, although I have to agree that on some days we all go home thinking 'how did' or 'why did'?

Just as in court, some people go down, some get off (wow, a double double entrendre) ...

[Dave Brand]

It's easy to criticise someone whose job you know nothing about. Could you do a better job? Funny, you claim to be 'unpartisan' then launch into a personal attack......

Yes, in F3 the application of the rules does appear to be variable; adherence to the rules is also variable, particularly when it comes to flag signals.

The imposition of penalties depends on proof of the infringement being available; if no such proof exists, then there is no point in imposing a penalty only for it to be overturned on appeal. That's why drivers can sometimes 'get away' with a breach of the rules which should have been penalised. An example: in the second race at Oulton I & another marshal saw a car overtake under a yellow flag, yet it was not reported. Why? Because the number of the car which overtook was obscured by the car he was overtaking. It would have been just the same if it had been the number of the car which was being overtaken which was obscured - both numbers are required to be able to report such incidents.

Nobody's perfect. Just remember that the CoC can't personally see every incident, every infringement, every example of bad driving; he relies on the observers to keep him informed. Maybe if the drivers & the teams were less intent on winning at any cost you would have less reason to whinge about the way the rules are applied?

[rlinter]

It's easy to criticise someone whose job you know nothing about. Could you do a better job?

I have a funny feeling that 'Bigwayne' could be on the inside looking out.... So he might well know what he is talking about as some of his observations are spot on...

Funny, you claim to be 'unpartisan' then launch into a personal attack......

I suggest you go grab a dictionary.. An look up the word 'unpartisan'....

[Little]

I've helped Dennis Carter a few times and he's a mega guy to work with. I was there when the Robbie / James decision was made and it wasn't down to him. It's down to the stewards of the meeting which change depending on the organisers (wether it be BRDC, BARC or BRSCC) or venues.

I know the rules aint been applied evenly, but since when in motorsport have they?!

Even in F1 where they have the same people at every meeting it is to the discretion of the steward on the day and unfortunetly that means at the moment there is never a clear cut penalty. Some of the rulings that i've seen haven't always been applied to the drivers at the top (naming no names) but have been applied more to the tail-enders for exactly the same offence.

Liam

[petrobras_babe]

As an unpartisan observer

huh? :confused: :confused:

[Dave Brand]

Originally posted by rlinter

I have a funny feeling that 'Bigwayne' could be on the inside looking out.... So he might well know what he is talking about as some of his observations are spot on...

If he is an insider, wouldn't he have said so? Identifying himself as a team owner, driver, journalist, marshal, whatever, would give more credibility to his opinions than does his claim to be an 'unpartisan observer'.

I suggest you go grab a dictionary.. An look up the word 'unpartisan'....

Cheap shots like that do nothing to advance this discussion, do they? I'm sure you didn't mean to appear patronising.....

I have never met Dennis Carter (us lowly marshals don't move in such exalted circles ) but I believe that, whatever an individual's strengths or shortcomings, a public forum like this is not the place for personal attacks, particularly when the identity of the poster is hidden & the victim of the attacks is unlikely to read them. Blaming the Clerk of the Course for the actions of the stewards, judges, timekeepers, etc., shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of the way the sport is run. If you've got a complaint about the way a man does his job, talk to him, not about him.