Grass Lake ASH Appeal to National Commissioner

[thepiranhabros]

Mackey, point made…you look to DQ and I look to keep people in. Funny I thought you were a glass is half full kind of guy.

Don:

I am not looking to DQ anybody. And I am not looking to make you or Ed angry. I have too much respect for both of you to start a pi**ing match with either of you two, especially in a public forum.

The argument was made that, "The rule does NOT say what the penalty is for a violation of the pickle fork rule (unlike the rule against leaving the pits after the white flag)."

I am arguing that the rule does state a penalty; warning and/or DQ. It is also up to the Referee to enforce the rule. I am arguing that the Inspector made the right call and issued a DQ based on a technicality. And I did state in a different thread that I thought the DQ was justified.

Where the argument goes when the Inspector's decision is overturned is where things get sticky and the discussion gets heated.

I am neither optimist nor a pessimist in this debate. What I am is a "Rules Guy." This is not always a popular position to be in. I am sorry if I offended you or Ed as that was not my intent.

[blueskyracer]

[QUOTE=thepiranhabros;209593]Don:

What I am is a "Rules Guy."

I like this Michael.. So am I but I am amazed at how many times I have been told the "Rules" are just a guide line.. What is with that??

[thepiranhabros]

[QUOTE=blueskyracer;209601]

Don:

What I am is a "Rules Guy."

I like this Michael.. So am I but I am amazed at how many times I have been told the "Rules" are just a guide line.. What is with that??

Mike:

I'm not sure what is with that. But it happens everywhere, in every aspect of life; not just in boat racing. I just try to follow the rules and try not to pi** too many people off along the way.

[Big Don]

Mackey…just giving you a hard time.

I’m a rules guy also, and I think they need to be enforced. I also think the SORC acted within our rules.

So if I understand you correctly…

We both agree the inspector made the right call.

We both agree the referee has the power to enforce the non speed advantage rule. We both agree that he didn’t.

Not sure on what the, “the DQ was justified” means? Does that mean the inspector was right in the DQ or that Matt should not be put back in?

Your right this whole thing is over the SORC having the power to run our category and having the final decision. Once again, our bylaws give us this power.

So what I’m not sure about, and would like you and anyone else that would like to answer my question, who thinks Matt should not be awarded the championship? Then go back and read my kill switch post and tell me if that were you in either of those situations, would you still feel the same way.

We really want to take earned wins on the race course away from drivers and award them to others that couldn’t win on the course for a non speed advantage item.

Remember not everyone learns at the same level, not everyone learns by reading, not everyone learns by doing…we as leaders are here to help, assist, coach, teach, educate our fellow races, and when something like this happens we should do all those things listed to help them. And don’t give me…. George and Matt should know better. Knowing George as a I do he would have fixed them in 5 minutes if he knew. And Matt…well he’s Matt and just knows how to drive .

[Sheila Schaub]

I don't mean to "jack this thread", but I have a question and was wondering if one of you guys could answer it for me. Jordan Swain was thrown out in CSH for something that I was told was also a Non-Speed-Advantage item, maybe I misunderstood, or was misinformed. Either way, what exactly was the disqualification for? Sorry for my ignorance, but if you don't ask questions, you'll never learn anything.

Thanks,

She

[Big Don]

The difference is… it was a internal part that was machined wrong on Jordan’s engine. One could argue if what was a speed advantage or not since it was internal. I tend to think it was not but would have a hard time proving my opinion.

[csh2z]

The reason this rule came about was because the BOD told us to make a rule regarding sponson tips or they would force the Mod/Pro on us. The purpose was due to a UIM safety data report that APBA adopted as their own to satisfy Insurance demands and uniformity. The data was developed based on boats that were much bigger and faster than most of the boats that compete in our category. The dimensions were calculated for boats going 90+ mph which would require a larger radius to reduce the damaging impact that could occur during a collision.
There were two significant differences between the Mod/Pro rule and the rule we wrote. 1. Because many of the boats for the smaller A & B classes ( taking into consideration crossover boats from J & AX mostly with very short pickles.) would have required some pretty extreme modifications to meet the rule. The rule, remember was designed for boats going at much higher speeds. 2. The Mod/Pro rule exempted boats built essentially before the rule was adopted! Does that make any sense for a safety rule? To exempt 90% of the boats on the water? How many boats, competing today are still exempt from this rule? Our rule ( appropriately,a compromise on the radius ) would make ALL boats "safer". Immediately!
As far as the DQ. Traditionally anything but a technical violation usually receives a warning not to come back to inspection without the offense being repaired or you will be DQ'd.

[Big Don]

What funny and makes no sense to me is we mandate this on hydros but do nothing with the points on runabouts.

I know, all the boats would be illegal because they would be too short. Change the rules to be 9”11” etc...

[blueskyracer]

Having read every post on HR since we need to know what is going on I must say that all the accidents this year had injurys caused by the exiting of the boat, props and skid fins..I dont recall any spearing accidents..That being said why not get rid of the sponson requirement for stock and add a requirement for "kevlar" gloves, socks and shoes.. Makes more sense to me

[thepiranhabros]

Mackey…just giving you a hard time.

I’m a rules guy also, and I think they need to be enforced. I also think the SORC acted within our rules.

So if I understand you correctly…

We both agree the inspector made the right call.

We both agree the referee has the power to enforce the non speed advantage rule. We both agree that he didn’t.

Not sure on what the, “the DQ was justified” means? Does that mean the inspector was right in the DQ or that Matt should not be put back in?

Your right this whole thing is over the SORC having the power to run our category and having the final decision. Once again, our bylaws give us this power.

So what I’m not sure about, and would like you and anyone else that would like to answer my question, who thinks Matt should not be awarded the championship? Then go back and read my kill switch post and tell me if that were you in either of those situations, would you still feel the same way.

We really want to take earned wins on the race course away from drivers and award them to others that couldn’t win on the course for a non speed advantage item.

Remember not everyone learns at the same level, not everyone learns by reading, not everyone learns by doing…we as leaders are here to help, assist, coach, teach, educate our fellow races, and when something like this happens we should do all those things listed to help them. And don’t give me…. George and Matt should know better. Knowing George as a I do he would have fixed them in 5 minutes if he knew. And Matt…well he’s Matt and just knows how to drive .

Don:

Yes, based on Rule 3.21, I think the Inspector made the right call.

Yes, based on Rule 18, I think the Referee had the power to override the Inspector's call.

When I said I thought the DQ was justified (which I had said in a different thread), I mean that I think the Inspector was right to issue a DQ based on the violation of Rule 3.21.

It is up to the Referee (or in this case, the SORC) to decide if the Inspector's decision stands.

Earlier in this thread I said, "...when the paths in the rule books are followed, it leads me to believe that the Inspector's ruling about illegal equipment was correct and should have stood."

That said, after much thought I will now say this. If there is even one single record of warning -- verbal or otherwise for this infraction prior to the 2012 Nationals Finals -- the driver should be disqualified. Per the rules. If, however, there is no prior warning record, the driver should be reinstated, and both driver and boat builder should receive stern written warnings. Also per the rules.

And let this be a lesson to all of us.

God, I have a headache now...

[Bob Rusnak]

I have been following this thread for some time now. Am I correct in saying the boat had a 2012 inspection sticker for the Nationals. If so the boat was found to be legal at that point. I can see if there was a change made after the sticker was in place as that would be a reason for a DQ. This is not the case here. The fault is not with the owner or driver. It is with the inspection system. At this time if found to be not per the requirements, a warning should have been given to the owner to fix the problem before entering the race. If I read this correctly, there was a 1/8 in. discrepancy in the radius. Is this reason to DQ a National Champion which if so important should have been picked up before. It is just my opinion that once the boat was inspected for safety and a sticker was in place the win should stand. Again this is just my opinion.....Bob N-96

[mike ross]

has anyone heard how the vote or decision went on this. Seems like it been plenty long enough for an answer.

[BP125V]

the ruling is in

has anyone heard how the vote or decision went on this. Seems like it been plenty long enough for an answer.

Strang has ruled that Mackey should spend less time posting on HR.net and more time fixing his kid's boat so he can go testing before it gets too cold!

[spud62w]

Strang has ruled that Mackey should spend less time posting on HR.net and more time fixing his kid's boat so he can go testing before it gets too cold!

I just wonder how the 48 appeal would of turned out if Strang heard it?

[T Chance]

What funny and makes no sense to me is we mandate this on hydros but do nothing with the points on runabouts.

Maybe because runabout drivers are so skillful that they don't run into one another??