Eastern Creek Penalties

[RaceTime]

CAMS have re-issed the penalties advice release from the Eastern Creek V8 Supercar Round:

Stewards penalties imposed at the V8 Supercar Championship Series Round 13, Eastern Creek Raceway, 28-30 November 2003



Saturday 29 November


An inquiry was held into an alleged breach of the Rules, that car #24, David Krause, was reported to have exceeded the maximum ignition timing variation. Breach was proved by admission and a penalty of car #24 to start Race 1 from the rear of the grid was imposed.


The following cars received pit lane drive through penalties during Race 1:
* Car #1, Mark Skaife, false start
* Car #34, Garth Tander, driving infringement
* Car #51, Greg Murphy, driving infringement



Sunday 30 November


An inquiry was held into an alleged breach of the Rules, that contact was made between car #15, Rick Kelly, and car #7, David Besnard. No clear breach of the Rules by either driver could be established and no further action was taken.


An inquiry was held into an incident during Race 2, between car #9, Russell Ingall, and car #1, Mark Skaife. Both car #9, Russell Ingall, and car #1, Mark Skaife, were found to be in breach of the Rules, careless driving. A penalty of a deduction of 70 championship points was applied to car #9, Russell Ingall. A penalty of a deduction of 30 championship points was applied to car #1, Mark Skaife. Mark Skaife appealed the decision. The National V8 Supercar Court of Appeal upheld Skaife's appeal (hearing held on 4 December and reconvened on 22 December 2003) and the penalty of a deduction of 30 championship points was quashed.


Russell Ingall was also found to be in breach of the Rules, bringing the sport into disrepute, for driving his car towards a person proximate to the racing surface. A penalty of exclusion from the meeting, including deduction of all points earned during the meeting, and a maximum $15,000 fine was applied (The National V8 Supercar Court of Appeal met on 4 December 2003 and reduced to $10,000). A further penalty of a three-event suspension, suspended on the basis that he is not found guilty of the same offence in the next 12 months, was also applied.


Mark Skaife was also found to be in breach of the Rules, bringing the sport into disrepute, for failure to comply with the instructions of an official and failure to retire behind the first line of safety after the incident. A penalty of a deduction of 75 championship points and a $10,000 fine was applied. A further penalty of a three-event suspension, suspended on the basis that he is not found guilty of the same offence in the next 12 months, was also applied.

The following cars received pit lane drive through penalties during Race 2:
* Car #66, Dean Canto, overlapping at the end of a Safety Car deployment


An inquiry was held (heard on 22 December) into an alleged breach of the Rules by car #9, Stone Brothers Racing, in regard to the incorrect functioning of the In Car Camera for the duration of Race 2. The Stewards found that Stone Brothers Racing had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the In Car Camera was functioning and therefore no breach of the Rules was found.


An inquiry was held (heard on 22 December) into an incident between car #6, Craig Lowndes, and car #11, Steven Richards, during Race 2. Stewards found that there was inadequate evidence to justify a breach of Rules by either driver. No further action was taken.

[Wrex]

Thanks RT

Originally posted by RaceTime
An inquiry was held (heard on 22 December) into an alleged breach of the Rules by car #9, Stone Brothers Racing, in regard to the incorrect functioning of the In Car Camera for the duration of Race 2. The Stewards found that Stone Brothers Racing had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the In Car Camera was functioning and therefore no breach of the Rules was found.

I found this interesting. I'm suprised it is the teams responsibilty for this. I would have thought this was the broadcasters problem.

[RaceTime]

I guess this is one of the areas where the ruling body dictates that certain equipment has to be used, but that equipment cannot be tampered with in any way - and the team is then held responsible for its correct operation, even though they cannot do anything about it.

It is like the transmitter they use for timing - the teams can charge them, look at the lights on the unit, but have no way at all, until they go on the track, to know whether it is actually working correctly...

[GTRMagic]

I thought these things were originally to be self-powered and self-sustaining so that the teams had no cause to go anywhere near them?

That would have been the logical step... or otherwise we could get a Sandown thing with SHRT and the battery goes down, and the cam gets turned off....

[Wrex]

I would be very disappointed to see a driver or team penalised because one of Channel 10's camera's broke down!