7a sent off, why? (Read 5,619 times)

[Deleted]

Yep , Was a bit harsh sending him off . Not the only incident like that .
Most went unnoticed .
Inconsistency by the refs once again...

[Ricoshea]

one thing that continues to amaze me

very few cars did 360 degree turns to re enter the race, and yet did not get pinged

[TheGinga]

Mar 15, 2011 9:34:46 GMT 12 Ricoshea said:

one thing that continues to amaze me

very few cars did 360 degree turns to re enter the race, and yet did not get pinged

I dont know thne actual ruling but,
I thought a car only had to do a 360degree turn to reenter IN FRONT of the car or cars that put them in field?

[Ricoshea]

you might be right, perhaps a really clued up person could inform us.

[BarryB]

a 360 degree turn would put them BEHIND the car that forced them infield - and so it should

[Admin]

Mar 17, 2011 10:25:21 GMT 12 BarryB said:

a 360 degree turn would put them BEHIND the car that forced them infield - and so it should

Wouldn't that depend on the size of the 360 degree turn and whether the other car carried on?. on the spot donuts spring to mind. lol.

Do you think forcing another car infield should be illegal, isn't that using the pole line and infield to unfair advantage?. Shouldn't the business side of the racing be confined to the race track?.

just throwing it out there.

[Deleted]

Mar 17, 2011 10:33:59 GMT 12 Admin said:

Do you think forcing another car infield should be illegal, isn't that using the pole line and infield to unfair advantage?. Shouldn't the business side of the racing be confined to the race track?.

No less than putting a car up the wall is using the concrete wall to gain an unfair advantage - which is also illegal as in wallriding like tanks used to do with a flat tyre to keep speed up.

Forcing a car to the infield whereby making them yield, to prevent them passing or to protect your runners is a legitimate teams racing tactic, and one that you'll notice all the smartest and best teams racers understand and use wisely - i.e Higgins, Bengston etc...

[Admin]

exactly Basil , it's a tactic so prevalent now is it time for it to be looked at?.
The infield is a safe haven for the mere mortals that are there. It's enough that cars accidently finish up there without it being a deliberate action.
Same goes for the wall, it's supposed to there to contain the cars and protect those watching , now it's part of the play.

I'm not taking a stance on the above , just provoking some thought.

[BarryB]

Mar 17, 2011 10:33:59 GMT 12 Admin said:

Mar 17, 2011 10:25:21 GMT 12 BarryB said:

a 360 degree turn would put them BEHIND the car that forced them infield - and so it should

Wouldn't that depend on the size of the 360 degree turn and whether the other car carried on?. on the spot donuts spring to mind. lol.

No, because the attacking car can only either carry on (putting him farther down the track) or stop (reversing IS illegal), but I'm pretty sure even if he stops and the yielding car does a donut, that driver MUST rejoin behind his attacker. Also, I prefer hot cross buns to donuts....

[Admin]

Mar 17, 2011 11:42:54 GMT 12 BarryB said:

Mar 17, 2011 10:33:59 GMT 12 Admin said:

Wouldn't that depend on the size of the 360 degree turn and whether the other car carried on?. on the spot donuts spring to mind. lol.

No, because the attacking car can only either carry on (putting him farther down the track) or stop (reversing IS illegal), but I'm pretty sure even if he stops and the yielding car does a donut, that driver MUST rejoin behind his attacker. Also, I prefer hot cross buns to donuts....

depends on where momentum has taken the attacked car . Had my first hotcross buns from Brumbies the other day and yuk they were too. I'm hanging out for a fresh cream donut.

[The Godfather]

Must re-enter in the same straight or corner in which the car left the track.

Drivers pushed over the poleline by an attacking car must ''concede'' and disengage from the attcking car(attacking car can not continue attcking a car over the poleline) and re-enter behind the car that put them there. This does not always require a 360 degree turn.

[Actionman]

Mar 17, 2011 11:06:41 GMT 12 Admin said:

exactly Basil , it's a tactic so prevalent now is it time for it to be looked at?.
The infield is a safe haven for the mere mortals that are there. It's enough that cars accidently finish up there without it being a deliberate action.
Same goes for the wall, it's supposed to there to contain the cars and protect those watching , now it's part of the play.

I'm not taking a stance on the above , just provoking some thought.

I think the Tactic has always been there Gordon, What I think makes it more noticeable is the cars taking so long to get back on the track. with the new 360's rule having to return in the same straight or corner With the current set up and speed of the cars you can cost a guy half a lap or more but forcing them over the pole line. Maybe the runners are diving the pole side more often to avoid the wall slap?

[Dirt_Fan]

Mar 17, 2011 10:33:59 GMT 12 Admin said:

Mar 17, 2011 10:25:21 GMT 12 BarryB said:

a 360 degree turn would put them BEHIND the car that forced them infield - and so it should

Wouldn't that depend on the size of the 360 degree turn and whether the other car carried on?. on the spot donuts spring to mind. lol.

Do you think forcing another car infield should be illegal, isn't that using the pole line and infield to unfair advantage?. Shouldn't the business side of the racing be confined to the race track?.

just throwing it out there.

I find it hard to see it as unfair advantage as both teams have use of the "tactic" if they wish and all it is doing is forcing either sides car to adhere to the rules "no racing on the infield" just as with the wall where theres not so much rules as its a case of if your pinned against it or on our roof you cant go anywhere, its a aspect of the racing that anyone can use if they find themselves in the right position.