Collard disqualified for Neal incident

[Chris Y]

Originally Posted by johnw

Can't blame Collard for retaliating, as bugger all else is done to redress the rubbish driving.

The thing is, retaliation has NO place on a circuit. FULL STOP. This incident just goes to prove that point - Neal's crash was quite nasty (assuming it was retaliation of course, there's no real proof)

I'm glad Collard has been excluded. Admittedly yes, it's possible Neal braked early (possibly a brake problem again, or 'brake testing' Collard), but given the circumstances, the organisers have seen fit to impose a penalty - in my view, it's better that they did, rather than be seen to be 'ignoring' the issue of driver-barging and subsequent injury. I hope to see more penalties for unnecessary rear-contact during the season.

[Silk Cut Jaguar]

Neal's crash was a major one but it seems harsh only penalising Collard when the majority of the field were driving bumper cars all weekend.

I'm all for a bit of door banging and paint trading, but the BTCC has decended to the point where driver skill is secondary to just barging the other guy out the way for position.

[MarkG]

Plato is a rock ape.

[NiG_21]

Originally Posted by Silk Cut Jaguar

Neal's crash was a major one but it seems harsh only penalising Collard when the majority of the field were driving bumper cars all weekend.

I agree as I'm quite convinced the accident was Neal's fault!.. In the replay's from Collards car you can see Neal's brake lights come on and then go off again just before Collard contacts him - that IS a brake test! At the time Neal is moving for the high line and Collard (reasonably) opts for the low one and doesn't manage the switch before Neal slows.

I think the incident deserved investigation, but I doubt I would have penalised anyone... but the CoC has a LOT more information than I do.

I saw nothing throughout the day (on TV) that I would consider anything but a racing incident - some admittedly were rough though. I may have wanted a few 'words' with some drivers.

[Ryo28]

Originally Posted by Silk Cut Jaguar

Neal's crash was a major one but it seems harsh only penalising Collard when the majority of the field were driving bumper cars all weekend.

Very true, Plato in particular seems to consistently get away with it, IMO. Some exciting racing though overall and at least there are a few more cars than last year, although one or two more wouldn't go amiss...

[luke]

For Thompson after racing a year in the WTCC, he must be wondering what he's racing in the BTCC.

[Stephen Green]

A good car by the look of yesterdays results Luke!

For your information all contact is reported by the marshals to Race Control, what they choose to do with that information is up to them. They may decide to keep a close eye on that driver or they may decide to show a driver warning flag. Of course they could do nothing, but that is their job not ours or marshals.

[touringlegend]

I think it's the outcome of the accident - the big shunt - which ended with Collard's punishment - if Neal had somehow just spun on track I doubt Rob Collard would've got as big a penalty.

[Hazard]

Wanted this in it's own thread.

Detail on his disqualification is at btcc.net

[Hazard]

Originally Posted by touringlegend

I think it's the outcome of the accident - the big shunt - which ended with Collard's punishment - if Neal had somehow just spun on track I doubt Rob Collard would've got as big a penalty.

Which is hardly a fair way of awarding punishment, as then it just seems to be as though you're seen to be punishing bad driving based on the accident and not the maneuvre.

What if it was a very dangerous move but their was no incident?

My personal opinion is that this was Rob's fault though - I was expecting the disqualification and maybe an endorsement but not the penalty - saying that, I think the grid penalty's in the rules isn't it? I don't believe most of Plato's moves during the day were any less dangerous though.

[davyboy]

When I saw the accident live, in real time, it looked very much like retaliation for what happened at Clark Curve. On reflection though, its unlikely Matt Neal would have brake tested Collard and its highly unlikely Collard would want Matt to go off at Paddock Hill bend, its just too dangerous. What possibly happened is that Neal tried to take a defensive line on the inside necessitating a move across the track and an earlier braking point. Collard attempted to get there first to feign an overtaking manouvre and a collision happened. For sure the outcome was serious and such situations will always warrant investigation... but I don't think Collard should have been punished for what happened as that implies there was malicious intent there... and an associated black mark against Collard's character. That's probably why WSR were so vehement in their appeals, taking it all the way to the MSA. It probably was just a racing incident.

[Alwaysfirst]

I really don't believe that Collard intended to push Neal off the circuit & I can quite believe that Neal did brake early, although, as he was defending his position this is ok in my view. However, Collard really wasn't that colse to the back of Neal's car by BTCC standards. I do think that many of the decisions in the BTCC are very suspect though. It seems to be that even shoving somebody off the circuit is fine as long as they don't have an accident & then when an accident does occur they go crazy about it, handing out overly harsh punishments. I'm all for pannel-bashing but I'm fed up of seeing incidents like where Neal was nearly pushed into the wall on the start/finish straight by one of the WSR cars (can't remember which one). The ITV commentators were right to say that this could have been a huge accident & imo that is the kind of driving for which disqualifications/penalties should be given.

[johnw]

Originally Posted by Chris Y

The thing is, retaliation has NO place on a circuit. FULL STOP.

Completely agree Chris. I was trying (obviously not very effectively) to make the point that if no action is taken, people will seek their own retribution. IMO Neal's contact on Collard at the previous corner was worthy of punishment, as was the move that put Neal on the grass by the pit wall and pretty much every move that Plato made.

Originally Posted by Chris Y

I hope to see more penalties for unnecessary rear-contact during the season.

I'd hope to see them for avoidable contact from any angle. There should have been penalties handed out before the third race. If it's stamped on, there will be less contact, which would enhance the championship IMO.

[Chris Y]

Just one other thing - regarding Neal's brake lights 'flashing' on the straight just before the braking point - this is entirely normal, and just about every driver does it - it's a quick dab on the brake pedal to bring the pads back in contact with the discs.

If you don't do that, then as you exit Clearways and Clark, the cornering forces are sufficient to knock the brake pads off the discs, and then as you hit the brakes for Paddock Hill, you get a lot more pedal travel, because the pads have to take up the slack. At Paddock Hill, this is terrifying, as it feels like the pedal is going to the floor and you have no brakes..

So, it's perfectly normal to see a momentary flash of brake lights there, but there would have been no actual braking, as the touch on the pedal is very light.

[BootsOntheSide]

The BTCC stewards have made the most fundamental punishment error - punishing the consequences and not the actual actions. It wasn't heavy contact and genuinely didn't look deliberate; it was a combination of circusmtnaces which made Matt's impact so potentially dangerous. Far worse driving has gone unpunished in the past, this weekend indeed.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

The BTCC stewards have made the most fundamental punishment error - punishing the consequences and not the actual actions. It wasn't heavy contact and genuinely didn't look deliberate; it was a combination of circusmtnaces which made Matt's impact so potentially dangerous. Far worse driving has gone unpunished in the past, this weekend indeed.

I agree completely. I believe that the violent nature of the impact has caused an over-emotive response from some quarters.

Had Neal spun un-harmed into the gravel or got a bit sideways, I feel that Collard would have escaped punishment.

[Craner Curves]

Anyone else get the feeling that Steve Neal probably whinged and moaned at Toca until they gave in and did what he wanted them to do?

[stuart05]

The way that the Honda stopped moving so suddenly, it was obvious that Matt wasn't going to just leap out. Looking at the in-car film, I don't think Rob was trying to be malicious. Paddock is a corner where you have to be so committed to the line you've selected from quite an early stage. That said, maybe Rob should have backed off just a wee bit more? But then again, this is the closing stages of the final race of the day and a time to be taking risks. Quite simply, I saw it as a racing accident that ended in an especially violent manner - one that no racing driver would want to have caused. A penalty for spoiling another drivers race would have probably been appropriate but nothing more.
I was far more disturbed by Jason Plato's "bump and pass" approach to making up places which to my mind belongs only in the contact formulas of the short oval racing.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by Craner Curves

Anyone else get the feeling that Steve Neal probably whinged and moaned at Toca until they gave in and did what he wanted them to do?

I imagine that Steve Neal made his feelings known to the officials, but I doubt that he had an influence over the final decision.

We shouldn't be so quick to bring the integrity of the officials into question. I was disappointed with the outcome, but the officials studied all the available data and found Collard at fault.

Although we may not agree with the decision, we must accept that the officials acted in good faith.

[topwelshman]

I don't believe that Collard was malicious but some of the moves he made in earlier races (like pushing Neal onto the grass) were decidedly dodgy, what goes around comes around and he deserved the move on the previous corner, pity it had to go that far though.

[ascarracinguk]

not been funny guys but why are we bickering about who has done worse to who and if it was in vengence to others....at the end of the day you arent allowed to punt someone off. in the past 3 years ive seen the driving standards decrease dramatically, i hope to god that this is the first of many disqualifications to clamp down on bad driving. you can have perfectly good races without tapping the guy infront to get past, just look at the v8 supercar championship, the stewards are extremely strict but the drivers have respect and dont go out of their way to punt the other guy off. sooner or later someone is going to be hurt, it may be a driver or could be a marshal or spectator. ive looked at the videos of the accident and laps before and matt looks to be breaking in the same place each lap, so if collards excuse is valid then either hes awesome on the breaks or he punted matt off because mat tapped him at the last corner. but hey like ive said no one should be in contact with anyone else...its just bad driving. take plato for example, blaming giovanardi for his accident, the fact that he was sideways in the firstplacde because he punted the guy in front didnt occur in his little mind!

[davyboy]

I don't think the driving standards in the BTCC have decreased... there's been bumping and boring, tipping and tapping for years, its the nature of the beast. Where officials need to draw a line is where intent is malicious and/or the level of impact is more than a tap.
The other alternative is to make the BTCC truely non contact. That would entail making the bodywork of all cars contact sensitive and in the event or more two touch, alarms go off in race control and the parties brought under scrutiny to apportion blame - an completely illogical situation in my opinion.
People want to see excitement on track. Rivalries are a good thing, bumping and boring are part of touring car racing and always have been. We all just want to see sensible policing by the officials and consistency in their admonishment.

[Phoenix1]

Originally Posted by johnw

Completely agree Chris. I was trying (obviously not very effectively) to make the point that if no action is taken, people will seek their own retribution. IMO Neal's contact on Collard at the previous corner was worthy of punishment, as was the move that put Neal on the grass by the pit wall and pretty much every move that Plato made.

Turkington could not see Neal. As you may have heard or seen his wingmirror was bent in on that side and from the angle at which Neal came there was no way he could see him.

[Phoenix1]

The fact the WSR have taken this all the way shows that they, like me, believe it was a racing accident. Neal braked earlier and Collard was simply taken unawares. Okay so the crash was big but the fact is it was not intentional. Collard wins by far only not foul. That's what I like about being a WSR supporter, especially this year, two great drivers who will push bash wing mirrors up to a point but never over the top and never try to shunt anyone off.

Of course as a bonus if Collard is back in, as he should be, then WSR would be right up there team and driver wise. It's drivers like Plato and Neal who need watching for their driving not visa versa.

[davyboy]

Phoenix, I agree with you completely. Dick Bennetts is definitely a man of principles. He's been in this game for over 25 years and doesn't suffer fools lightly. Clearing Rob's name is very important to him. I'm pretty certain Rob never intended for Matt to disappear into the scenery and having that held against him as an intentional action on his part, is fairly heavy.