Tweet
I am going to explain what I did and why I did it and then I am not going to say one more word about it on Hydroracer. I am happy to discuss the matter in private with anyone, however.
Rule 31.5 of the General Racing Rules provides as follows: "[The Referee] shall insist that all provisions of the racing rules be complied with at all times." This is a MANDATORY RULE. It does not allow for discretion.
At Driver's Meeting, the following was announced nearly verbatim :
"For Winternationals Classes, ALL boats must report to inspection after the first heat. For the second heat, if you are in the top three (3) positions, you MUST report to inspection. If you THINK you are not in the top three (3) but you are mistaken and IN FACT ARE in the top three (3) you MUST report to inspection. A failure to report to inspection will result in an automatic disqualification."
4-J ran a probationary engine. Rule 13 of the Combined Outboard Rules deals with this type of entry and provides that it is a legal entry but the driver does not receive national high points. The driver of 4-J was charged the full entry fee just like everyone else and was a legitimate competitor in ASR just like everyone else.
4-J finished in overall third-place in the ASR Winternationals Race. 4-J reported to inspection after the first heat but did not report to inspection after the second heat. One of the inspectors disqualified the driver of the 4-J and I independently verfied that the driver failed to report to inspection after the second heat.
Rule 8.7 deals with inspection refusals at a National Championship Event and provides as follows:
"7. Upon refusal of inspection procedures at any regatta, said driver will be disqualified. Upon refusal of inspection procedures at Divisional, National
or record-attempt regattas, said driver shall be suspended for a period of one year for unsportsmanlike conduct."
4-J did not report to inspection in the ASR Winternationals class after the second heat after being specifically advised to do so at driver's meeting. In my judgment, this constitutes a refusal of an inspection procedure. It is not the job of the inspector or the Race Committee to seek out competitors who do not follow inspection procedures and the announcement was made at this driver's meeting that an automatic disqualification would ensue. But there is another rule, 8.7, which deals with this at National Championships.
Based upon my analysis, I believed that the Rules REQUIRED ME TO SUSPEND THE DRIVER OF THE 4-J FOR ONE YEAR. Combined Rule 8.7. I refused to do so. To this end, I suppose, I violated my obligations as a Referee. Instead, I searched the APBA rules to find an alternative which would impose a penalty that was at least consistent with the requirement of Combined Rule 8.7. I did: The Red card. The Red card rule provides a suspension (same as Combined Rule 8.7) but one that was not nearly as harsh. For the driver of 4-J, this would have meant a one-race suspension instead of the entire season that 8.7 requires.
I then personally met with the driver of the 4-J, in private, explained my decision, what I thought the rules required me to do, showed him the rules, and advised him that I was giving him a red card. I attempted to explain this process to him as best as I could in as polite and professional a manner as I could and tried to explain what my ruling meant. That driver was very calm and professional as well and his behavior during that exchange was what every racer should aspire to. It was nothing but first-class.
Those are the reasons I did what I did. The driver of the 4-J appealed my decision to the Race Committee which is what the Yellow/Red Card Rule provides. I explained my ruling to the Race Committee during their meeting and then left the meeting. I was later advised that the Race Committee had overturned my ruling.
I was fully aware at the time that General Racing Rules permit the Referee to overrule any decision of the Race Committee. Nevertheless, I chose not to exercise that right and I did not overrule the decision of the Race Committee regarding the appeal by 4-J even though I could have done so. This is not because I believe I made the wrong decision: I didn't and I still don't.
By the way, I considered the arguments that 1) 4-J was not required to come to inspection at all; and 2) 4-J did not "refuse" inspection and others regarding my understanding of the applicable rules to what occurred. I found none of them to be persuasive.
I want to tell you that I have been an APBA referee for fifteen years now and this decision that I made was one of the two hardest decisions I have ever had to make as a Referee. The other one involved depriving a competitor of a record. Indeed, I would place this decision in the top ten (10) of the hardest decisions I have made in my life. I disagreed with the rule regarding a one-year suspension. But it is not the job of the Referee to decide what the rules are or which ones are fair: that is the job of the Racing Commissions. Rather, the Referee is compelled to enforce them. I tried to come up with a compromise that provided what the Racing Rule required: a suspension - just not as stiff as one as the rules actually required. To this end, I disregarded what I believe the rule required. That, I found to be very difficult to do as well.
Finally, I want to dispel the notion that anyone "put me up to this" or "instigated this". As a Referee, I always have people who try to influence my decisions. It happens every time I serve. But I make my own decisions after I do my best to understand what happened and after reviewing the rules. This issuance of this Red Card to the driver of 4-J rests with me and no one else. As a wise Democrat once said: "The buck stops here!"
I know that my decision upset a lot of people. For that, I am very sorry. I know, as much as you all do too, that everyone we race against is part of our extended family. That is why these decisions are very hard.
Ed Hearn, Chief Referee, 2009 SO & MOD Winternationals.
Rule 31.5 of the General Racing Rules provides as follows: "[The Referee] shall insist that all provisions of the racing rules be complied with at all times." This is a MANDATORY RULE. It does not allow for discretion.
At Driver's Meeting, the following was announced nearly verbatim :
"For Winternationals Classes, ALL boats must report to inspection after the first heat. For the second heat, if you are in the top three (3) positions, you MUST report to inspection. If you THINK you are not in the top three (3) but you are mistaken and IN FACT ARE in the top three (3) you MUST report to inspection. A failure to report to inspection will result in an automatic disqualification."
4-J ran a probationary engine. Rule 13 of the Combined Outboard Rules deals with this type of entry and provides that it is a legal entry but the driver does not receive national high points. The driver of 4-J was charged the full entry fee just like everyone else and was a legitimate competitor in ASR just like everyone else.
4-J finished in overall third-place in the ASR Winternationals Race. 4-J reported to inspection after the first heat but did not report to inspection after the second heat. One of the inspectors disqualified the driver of the 4-J and I independently verfied that the driver failed to report to inspection after the second heat.
Rule 8.7 deals with inspection refusals at a National Championship Event and provides as follows:
"7. Upon refusal of inspection procedures at any regatta, said driver will be disqualified. Upon refusal of inspection procedures at Divisional, National
or record-attempt regattas, said driver shall be suspended for a period of one year for unsportsmanlike conduct."
4-J did not report to inspection in the ASR Winternationals class after the second heat after being specifically advised to do so at driver's meeting. In my judgment, this constitutes a refusal of an inspection procedure. It is not the job of the inspector or the Race Committee to seek out competitors who do not follow inspection procedures and the announcement was made at this driver's meeting that an automatic disqualification would ensue. But there is another rule, 8.7, which deals with this at National Championships.
Based upon my analysis, I believed that the Rules REQUIRED ME TO SUSPEND THE DRIVER OF THE 4-J FOR ONE YEAR. Combined Rule 8.7. I refused to do so. To this end, I suppose, I violated my obligations as a Referee. Instead, I searched the APBA rules to find an alternative which would impose a penalty that was at least consistent with the requirement of Combined Rule 8.7. I did: The Red card. The Red card rule provides a suspension (same as Combined Rule 8.7) but one that was not nearly as harsh. For the driver of 4-J, this would have meant a one-race suspension instead of the entire season that 8.7 requires.
I then personally met with the driver of the 4-J, in private, explained my decision, what I thought the rules required me to do, showed him the rules, and advised him that I was giving him a red card. I attempted to explain this process to him as best as I could in as polite and professional a manner as I could and tried to explain what my ruling meant. That driver was very calm and professional as well and his behavior during that exchange was what every racer should aspire to. It was nothing but first-class.
Those are the reasons I did what I did. The driver of the 4-J appealed my decision to the Race Committee which is what the Yellow/Red Card Rule provides. I explained my ruling to the Race Committee during their meeting and then left the meeting. I was later advised that the Race Committee had overturned my ruling.
I was fully aware at the time that General Racing Rules permit the Referee to overrule any decision of the Race Committee. Nevertheless, I chose not to exercise that right and I did not overrule the decision of the Race Committee regarding the appeal by 4-J even though I could have done so. This is not because I believe I made the wrong decision: I didn't and I still don't.
By the way, I considered the arguments that 1) 4-J was not required to come to inspection at all; and 2) 4-J did not "refuse" inspection and others regarding my understanding of the applicable rules to what occurred. I found none of them to be persuasive.
I want to tell you that I have been an APBA referee for fifteen years now and this decision that I made was one of the two hardest decisions I have ever had to make as a Referee. The other one involved depriving a competitor of a record. Indeed, I would place this decision in the top ten (10) of the hardest decisions I have made in my life. I disagreed with the rule regarding a one-year suspension. But it is not the job of the Referee to decide what the rules are or which ones are fair: that is the job of the Racing Commissions. Rather, the Referee is compelled to enforce them. I tried to come up with a compromise that provided what the Racing Rule required: a suspension - just not as stiff as one as the rules actually required. To this end, I disregarded what I believe the rule required. That, I found to be very difficult to do as well.
Finally, I want to dispel the notion that anyone "put me up to this" or "instigated this". As a Referee, I always have people who try to influence my decisions. It happens every time I serve. But I make my own decisions after I do my best to understand what happened and after reviewing the rules. This issuance of this Red Card to the driver of 4-J rests with me and no one else. As a wise Democrat once said: "The buck stops here!"
I know that my decision upset a lot of people. For that, I am very sorry. I know, as much as you all do too, that everyone we race against is part of our extended family. That is why these decisions are very hard.
Ed Hearn, Chief Referee, 2009 SO & MOD Winternationals.
Comment