|
|
Post by Jase2 on Mar 19, 2024 20:04:07 GMT 12
And who is having another go in the Superstock class next season Who Jase, who is giving superstocks another run? Osborne? Wood? Ian Burson has a new Superstock on the build |
|
|
|
Post by Tapped on Mar 19, 2024 22:18:23 GMT 12
Nice! is he pulling double duties or focusiing on one? good to see him back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramjam on Mar 20, 2024 8:43:25 GMT 12
For the first time ever we are a long way off topic, so I may as well meander down the off topic path. I never saw the hit in question so can't comment on that, but is piart of the problem the name of the rule?
The rule itself I don't have a particular problem with, altho it probably solved a problem that no longer existed. The days of high speed straightlines/follow in/wind offs, call it what you will, were a fairly brief blip in the history of the sport. I think most ppl, fans & drivers smartly saw the folly of such antics. The problem now seems to be more one of perception. You have drivers getting pinged for breaking the rule but not doing what the rule is called. Most of the examples I have seen have been nowhere near over aggressive but have been what is now an illegal maneuver.
Mr Mac himself summed it up perfectly years ago when he said using the wall as a weapon was a relatively new concept. That's true and in hindsight one that prob never had boundaries put around it when it did start to become a thing.
I was just gunna add my 2cents worth but I reckon y'all ended up with about $1.25. No thanks needed
|
|
|
|
Post by superstocker on Mar 20, 2024 8:55:40 GMT 12
If it’s done with in the rules then fair game..
If not as in this incident according to the officials then the punishment is served
People ask if asher will get done when he gets his pay back? Well that depends if he does it illegally or legally….
Discussion boards are that for a discussion but it can also show how many people don’t actually know the rules of contact racing…
|
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Mar 20, 2024 9:01:47 GMT 12
OVER AGGRESSIVE-ATTACKING
R12-3-34 Over-aggressive attacking is not permitted in turns 1 and 3.
An over-aggressive attack is defined as forcing another car into the wall at race speed or attacking a car at the wall at race speed with contact being bumper to bumper or bumper to siderail upon impact with the wall excluding turn 1 lap 1
|
|
|
|
Post by holden65 on Mar 20, 2024 9:19:51 GMT 12
OVER AGGRESSIVE-ATTACKING R12-3-34 Over-aggressive attacking is not permitted in turns 1 and 3. An over-aggressive attack is defined as forcing another car into the wall at race speed or attacking a car at the wall at race speed with contact being bumper to bumper or bumper to siderail upon impact with the wall excluding turn 1 lap 1 Hmmm what do snz define as race speed.example asher and jack be alot faster than the tail end Charlie's,so which of the cars do they define as race speed  |
|
|
|
Post by superstocker on Mar 20, 2024 9:37:27 GMT 12
OVER AGGRESSIVE-ATTACKING R12-3-34 Over-aggressive attacking is not permitted in turns 1 and 3. An over-aggressive attack is defined as forcing another car into the wall at race speed or attacking a car at the wall at race speed with contact being bumper to bumper or bumper to siderail upon impact with the wall excluding turn 1 lap 1 Hmmm what do snz define as race speed.example asher and jack be alot faster than the tail end Charlie's,so which of the cars do they define as race speed I think common sense answers this |
|
|
|
Post by graemeh on Mar 20, 2024 9:37:43 GMT 12
Asher was at race speed, Jack was slowing to impede Ashers progress so not at race speed. The fact the contact went so far was in my opinion because Asher didn't lift. The rule, in my opinion, was to prevent winding cars off the end of the straight not to penalise cars in a blocking mode.
|
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Mar 20, 2024 10:29:13 GMT 12
Anything above grand parade speed i would consider race speed as there is no speed limmits or rules but the rules state must be moving at all times
|
|
|
|
Post by Tapped on Mar 20, 2024 10:34:09 GMT 12
Hmmm what do snz define as race speed.example asher and jack be alot faster than the tail end Charlie's,so which of the cars do they define as race speed I think common sense answers this Now the $64million question. Define 'Common Sense'. The rule looks like it was written by a 5yr old Temu worker on work experiance. It defines 'race Speed' is that both cars, or one car? Miers was significantly slower than Rees who was running at the pointy end. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott C4YI on Mar 20, 2024 12:13:00 GMT 12
I think common sense answers this Now the $64million question. Define 'Common Sense'. The rule looks like it was written by a 5yr old Temu worker on work experience. It defines 'race Speed' is that both cars, or one car? Miers was significantly slower than Rees who was running at the pointy end. Funnily enough - it wasnt a 5 year old Temu worker that wrote the rule, It was me - Scott Tennant, current Stockcar/Superstock competitor that submitted the rule to AGM, which was then voted in by the stakeholders of our sport to replace the pre-existing rule that there was ongoing issues with. The rule isnt perfect - but after working tirelessly with other fellow Temu workers we felt this was an upgrade over the old rule giving our Referees the tools needed to make calls more consistently from track to track. We can sit there all day debating the definition of each word from the rule - the truth is its near impossible feat to define an overaggressive attack and all its variations without ruining the contact element of Stockcars - keep in mind we are the 1st sport in the world to ever have to do so! While I feel as a whole this rule does a good job for its desired purpose, the AGM is just around the corner - happy to discuss an improvement or alternative. |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Mar 20, 2024 12:14:38 GMT 12
OVER AGGRESSIVE-ATTACKING R12-3-34 Over-aggressive attacking is not permitted in turns 1 and 3. An over-aggressive attack is defined as forcing another car into the wall at race speed or attacking a car at the wall at race speed with contact being bumper to bumper or bumper to siderail upon impact with the wall excluding turn 1 lap 1 Weren't they siderail to siderail? Barry B |
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Mar 20, 2024 12:23:32 GMT 12
OVER AGGRESSIVE-ATTACKING R12-3-34 Over-aggressive attacking is not permitted in turns 1 and 3. An over-aggressive attack is defined as forcing another car into the wall at race speed or attacking a car at the wall at race speed with contact being bumper to bumper or bumper to siderail upon impact with the wall excluding turn 1 lap 1 Weren't they siderail to siderail? Barry B Nope, bumper to side rail hence the driver being suspended |
|
|
|
Post by Tapped on Mar 20, 2024 13:43:48 GMT 12
Now the $64million question. Define 'Common Sense'. The rule looks like it was written by a 5yr old Temu worker on work experience. It defines 'race Speed' is that both cars, or one car? Miers was significantly slower than Rees who was running at the pointy end. Funnily enough - it wasnt a 5 year old Temu worker that wrote the rule, It was me - Scott Tennant, current Stockcar/Superstock competitor that submitted the rule to AGM, which was then voted in by the stakeholders of our sport to replace the pre-existing rule that there was ongoing issues with. The rule isnt perfect - but after working tirelessly with other fellow Temu workers we felt this was an upgrade over the old rule giving our Referees the tools needed to make calls more consistently from track to track. We can sit there all day debating the definition of each word from the rule - the truth is its near impossible feat to define an overaggressive attack and all its variations without ruining the contact element of Stockcars - keep in mind we are the 1st sport in the world to ever have to do so! While I feel as a whole this rule does a good job for its desired purpose, the AGM is just around the corner - happy to discuss an improvement or alternative. Congratulations, i hope Temu treats you well.... if its almost impossible to define overagressive attacking, why have it to start with - its insanity. Since you wrote the rule, would you consider the incident in question overagressive attack with the intent of the rule? |
|
|
|
Post by Tapped on Mar 20, 2024 13:47:25 GMT 12
Now the $64million question. Define 'Common Sense'. The rule looks like it was written by a 5yr old Temu worker on work experience. It defines 'race Speed' is that both cars, or one car? Miers was significantly slower than Rees who was running at the pointy end. Funnily enough - it wasnt a 5 year old Temu worker that wrote the rule, It was me - Scott Tennant, current Stockcar/Superstock competitor that submitted the rule to AGM, which was then voted in by the stakeholders of our sport to replace the pre-existing rule that there was ongoing issues with. The rule isnt perfect - but after working tirelessly with other fellow Temu workers we felt this was an upgrade over the old rule giving our Referees the tools needed to make calls more consistently from track to track. We can sit there all day debating the definition of each word from the rule - the truth is its near impossible feat to define an overaggressive attack and all its variations without ruining the contact element of Stockcars - keep in mind we are the 1st sport in the world to ever have to do so! While I feel as a whole this rule does a good job for its desired purpose, the AGM is just around the corner - happy to discuss an improvement or alternative. Also, now that you've seen how the rule has been interpreted over the season do you think its acted as designed? |
|
|
|
Post by superstocker on Mar 20, 2024 14:49:52 GMT 12
Funnily enough - it wasnt a 5 year old Temu worker that wrote the rule, It was me - Scott Tennant, current Stockcar/Superstock competitor that submitted the rule to AGM, which was then voted in by the stakeholders of our sport to replace the pre-existing rule that there was ongoing issues with. The rule isnt perfect - but after working tirelessly with other fellow Temu workers we felt this was an upgrade over the old rule giving our Referees the tools needed to make calls more consistently from track to track. We can sit there all day debating the definition of each word from the rule - the truth is its near impossible feat to define an overaggressive attack and all its variations without ruining the contact element of Stockcars - keep in mind we are the 1st sport in the world to ever have to do so! While I feel as a whole this rule does a good job for its desired purpose, the AGM is just around the corner - happy to discuss an improvement or alternative. Congratulations, i hope Temu treats you well.... if its almost impossible to define overagressive attacking, why have it to start with - its insanity. Since you wrote the rule, would you consider the incident in question overagressive attack with the intent of the rule? The nature of the attack wasn’t over aggressive I think 99.9% of people would agree… but to how the rule is written it was… if there was a clear release then there would be no issue…. I mean you can full noise some off the end, button off let them hit the wall then go in for another shot an thats ok but would definitely be more of an over aggressive attack… If the sport wasn’t being seen to do something proactive to protect the drivers then we wouldn’t have a sport to complain about… |
|
|
|
Post by nakifans on Mar 20, 2024 14:52:32 GMT 12
Unfortunately laws/ rules are written in simplicity for the intent of the subject matter.
In this case you could fill a rule book if every possibility was written down.
Even Lawyers vs Lawyers make a fortune with a different interpretation of a ruling.
Over aggressive seems to of been a hot topic this season, didn't it start early in the season with a penalty being issued at a north island track.
Perhaps it's the wording { over aggressive} that needs re visiting
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott C4YI on Mar 20, 2024 15:41:50 GMT 12
Funnily enough - it wasnt a 5 year old Temu worker that wrote the rule, It was me - Scott Tennant, current Stockcar/Superstock competitor that submitted the rule to AGM, which was then voted in by the stakeholders of our sport to replace the pre-existing rule that there was ongoing issues with. The rule isnt perfect - but after working tirelessly with other fellow Temu workers we felt this was an upgrade over the old rule giving our Referees the tools needed to make calls more consistently from track to track. We can sit there all day debating the definition of each word from the rule - the truth is its near impossible feat to define an overaggressive attack and all its variations without ruining the contact element of Stockcars - keep in mind we are the 1st sport in the world to ever have to do so! While I feel as a whole this rule does a good job for its desired purpose, the AGM is just around the corner - happy to discuss an improvement or alternative. Congratulations, i hope Temu treats you well.... if its almost impossible to define overagressive attacking, why have it to start with - its insanity. Since you wrote the rule, would you consider the incident in question overagressive attack with the intent of the rule? Guess its been 10 years of insanity then - the first version of this rule was trialed in 2013/14 to come into full effect in the Superstock rulebook in 2014/15. But to answer your first question while the initial decision was not mine the sport was put into a position where they had to pick one of the following options: Option A - We make a conscious effort to reduce risk of injury by adding rules regarding overaggressive attacking. Option B - We do nothing and eventually an overruling body or insurer makes the rules for us or throws the class out completely. Its hard to have a fair opinion on it without seeing it from the referees angle, the contact at the wall is front bumper to siderail for sure - Yet to see any footage which you can make a judgement regarding speed although the fact that when they were riding around the wall and still at similar pace to those racing may give you that answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott C4YI on Mar 20, 2024 15:58:48 GMT 12
Funnily enough - it wasnt a 5 year old Temu worker that wrote the rule, It was me - Scott Tennant, current Stockcar/Superstock competitor that submitted the rule to AGM, which was then voted in by the stakeholders of our sport to replace the pre-existing rule that there was ongoing issues with. The rule isnt perfect - but after working tirelessly with other fellow Temu workers we felt this was an upgrade over the old rule giving our Referees the tools needed to make calls more consistently from track to track. We can sit there all day debating the definition of each word from the rule - the truth is its near impossible feat to define an overaggressive attack and all its variations without ruining the contact element of Stockcars - keep in mind we are the 1st sport in the world to ever have to do so! While I feel as a whole this rule does a good job for its desired purpose, the AGM is just around the corner - happy to discuss an improvement or alternative. Also, now that you've seen how the rule has been interpreted over the season do you think its acted as designed? I think so - it gives the competitor and the referee some more guidelines when making decisions but not too much they have to check 15 tickboxes in order to action anything. There was 7 infringements of the old rule across both classes last season, some deserved imo, some not - We currently stand at only 2 uses of the infringement for the 2024/25 season. While less punishments handed out isnt always a fair indicator I think there has been less incidents as a whole |
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Mar 20, 2024 16:18:08 GMT 12
One of the biggest issues with the rule is that there is no clear markings on the track where the corners start and end. The markings were there in 2013 but havent been back since
|
|
