|
|
Post by Tapped on Mar 20, 2024 16:50:12 GMT 12
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 Voluntary compliance is always better than enforced compliance at the end of the day. I seem to recall overagressiveness was only in Superstocks, was that the case, or was it just used more in superstocks? |
|
|
|
Post by Chopper on Mar 20, 2024 17:00:54 GMT 12
Rather than create a rule that can be interpreted a million different ways, would it not have been easier to implement a change to the cars themselves and slow them down (restrictor plates, tyre size)?
Everyone would then be on the same page and be playing by the same rules without the need to think in a split second whilst attacking during a race - is this hit going to be legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Mar 20, 2024 17:07:31 GMT 12
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 Excellent posts Scott, especially the way you explain things 👍 Barry B |
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Mar 20, 2024 17:30:47 GMT 12
Rather than create a rule that can be interpreted a million different ways, would it not have been easier to implement a change to the cars themselves and slow them down (restrictor plates, tyre size)? Everyone would then be on the same page and be playing by the same rules without the need to think in a split second whilst attacking during a race - is this hit going to be legal. They wont do that when they are trying to make stockcars faster with fuel injection and superstock tyres |
|
|
|
Post by Chopper on Mar 20, 2024 17:48:44 GMT 12
They wont do that when they are trying to make stockcars faster with fuel injection and superstock tyres Were these decision makers not around 20 years ago when the saying was "The faster you go the bigger the mess" It doesn't make sense to me to make a contact class's cars faster and the consequence of that be reduce/eleminate the contact because the cars are now going to fast meaning the injuries are more severe. Does NZ speedway not already have classes where you can go really fast without contact? 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Mar 20, 2024 19:33:47 GMT 12
Weren't they siderail to siderail? Barry B Nope, bumper to side rail hence the driver being suspended Actually (when you look closer) bumper to front bumper (beside the front wheel) and side rail to side rail Except the initial hit into the wall, but the travelling was. |
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Mar 20, 2024 19:45:42 GMT 12
Nope, bumper to side rail hence the driver being suspended Actually (when you look closer) bumper to front bumper (beside the front wheel) and side rail to side rail What the hell are you even looking at 🤣🤣 as they hit the wall it was bumper into the left rear wheel gate couldnt be any more obvious |
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Mar 20, 2024 19:51:11 GMT 12
Actually (when you look closer) bumper to front bumper (beside the front wheel) and side rail to side rail What the hell are you even looking at 🤣🤣 as they hit the wall it was bumper into the left rear wheel gate couldnt be any more obvious I was referring to the momentum around the wall |
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Mar 20, 2024 20:22:38 GMT 12
What the hell are you even looking at 🤣🤣 as they hit the wall it was bumper into the left rear wheel gate couldnt be any more obvious I was referring to the momentum around the wall Yea its the initital contact into the wall on turn 1 thats the issue |
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Mar 20, 2024 21:21:49 GMT 12
I was referring to the momentum around the wall Yea its the initital contact into the wall on turn 1 thats the issue The initial hit was non spectacular compared to the wall ride! |
|
|
|
Post by meeaneemic on Mar 21, 2024 5:19:50 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 I was waiting for someone to say this. Exactly right there are no markings!!, if you are driving down the road and a Cop pulls you up for speeding and you say ''but I didn't see the sign?'' what would your response be when he then tells you ''there isn't one''. Until Turns 1 and 3 are clearly marked again this is an unworkable rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott C4YI on Mar 21, 2024 7:33:30 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 I was waiting for someone to say this. Exactly right there are no markings!!, if you are driving down the road and a Cop pulls you up for speeding and you say ''but I didn't see the sign?'' what would your response be when he then tells you ''there isn't one''. Until Turns 1 and 3 are clearly marked again this is an unworkable rule. While I was under the same opinion initially I think the idea behind the lack of markings on the wall is an effort to avoid making a target zone as close to but just outside the markings. When they are encouraging an attitude and driving standards change with the competitors. |
|
|
|
Post by TonyT on Mar 21, 2024 7:39:29 GMT 12
The primary role of the referee is to keep drivers safe and racing fair. The rules are a means to achieve that, not a goal in themselves.
Any rule/regulation/law (in any context, speedway racing or society at large) that needs interpretation has to be supported by an understanding of what it's supposed to achieve and how. If a rule says dont exceed 30kmh and a measurement of 40kmh is made, then the rule is broken, penalty applied. But if a rule says dont drive dangerously, there needs to be a framework of understanding about what "driving dangerously" means before it can be determined if the rule has been broken. In part this understanding is generated over time by cases and examples after incidents have occurred, but it's also generated by discussion and agreement between the parties beforehand, so expectations can become part of the judgement process.
In this case an obvious question to ask is, at any point in the incident did anything happen which was unsafe? Or beyond the range of what could be considered normal or usual actions which driver and machine are equipped to handle? If there is clear evidence there was, then there is a case to answer. If not, then nit picking about the wording of things like "race speed" and where a turn starts and stops is just a distraction.
We have all seen incidents in super stock racing where we go "ooooh, that was a big one". Those are the incidents that need investigation by a referee because the instinctive human reaction is that it could be unsafe or unwise. But until there is a clear agreement between drivers, experts (medical & engineering) and administrators/referees of what is and isn't acceptable (a framework of "racing protocols") disagreement about rules like this will continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott C4YI on Mar 21, 2024 7:39:39 GMT 12
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 Voluntary compliance is always better than enforced compliance at the end of the day. I seem to recall overagressiveness was only in Superstocks, was that the case, or was it just used more in superstocks? Correct - originally the rule only applied to Superstocks, it was brought into Stockcars in 2021/22. |
|
|
|
Post by nakifans on Mar 21, 2024 7:39:39 GMT 12
If the Miers/Rees incident had occurred on the straights would it occur the same ruling/ penalty or does the ruling only apply 1/2 and 3/4.
I thought when ruling introduced it was too stop straight lining from straights into the corners.
|
|
|
|
Post by mod46c on Mar 21, 2024 8:29:51 GMT 12
The primary role of the referee is to keep drivers safe and racing fair. The rules are a means to achieve that, not a goal in themselves. Any rule/regulation/law (in any context, speedway racing or society at large) that needs interpretation has to be supported by an understanding of what it's supposed to achieve and how. If a rule says dont exceed 30kmh and a measurement of 40kmh is made, then the rule is broken, penalty applied. But if a rule says dont drive dangerously, there needs to be a framework of understanding about what "driving dangerously" means before it can be determined if the rule has been broken. In part this understanding is generated over time by cases and examples after incidents have occurred, but it's also generated by discussion and agreement between the parties beforehand, so expectations can become part of the judgement process. In this case an obvious question to ask is, at any point in the incident did anything happen which was unsafe? Or beyond the range of what could be considered normal or usual actions which driver and machine are equipped to handle? If there is clear evidence there was, then there is a case to answer. If not, then nit picking about the wording of things like "race speed" and where a turn starts and stops is just a distraction. We have all seen incidents in super stock racing where we go "ooooh, that was a big one". Those are the incidents that need investigation by a referee because the instinctive human reaction is that it could be unsafe or unwise. But until there is a clear agreement between drivers, experts (medical & engineering) and administrators/referees of what is and isn't acceptable (a framework of "racing protocols") disagreement about rules like this will continue. None of my business but I'll join in with everyone else and add my 5 cents  Having a referee is a bike thing, which we inherited. Oz, and US don't have them. Although I do believe they are required for contact classes, which brings me to my point they should be removed from non-contact (use stewards instead), and instead be specialists on contact grades. We have case law in the legal system to deal with interpretation of statutes, so to my mind we need operational procedures to cover interpretation of rules. So the rule book outlines what is desired, the rule book has a cadence of 2 years or so. The operational procedures can be changed at a much higher frequency as more information becomes available, but are still bound to the actual rule. The operational procedures need to be published and have a process for changing and challenging needs to be available. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott C4YI on Mar 21, 2024 8:32:49 GMT 12
They wont do that when they are trying to make stockcars faster with fuel injection and superstock tyres Were these decision makers not around 20 years ago when the saying was "The faster you go the bigger the mess" It doesn't make sense to me to make a contact class's cars faster and the consequence of that be reduce/eleminate the contact because the cars are now going to fast meaning the injuries are more severe. Does NZ speedway not already have classes where you can go really fast without contact? 🤣 I agree with you - the increased speed of the cars was the catalyst for this kind of rule to be brought in. The problem is to try and convince 700+ competitors across both classes and associated clubs to essentially spend money on there cars to meet rules designed to make them go slower. I can probably name 10 different things introduced over the last 15 years that have made the cars faster and yet I am struggling to name one which has been brought in to keep the performance in check. |
|
|
|
Post by superstocker on Mar 21, 2024 9:20:28 GMT 12
If the Miers/Rees incident had occurred on the straights would it occur the same ruling/ penalty or does the ruling only apply 1/2 and 3/4. I thought when ruling introduced it was too stop straight lining from straights into the corners. Only applies in turn 1 an 3… oh that note if your a drive an don’t know where turn 1/3 an where turn 2/4 start should you be racing 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by midway on Mar 21, 2024 10:25:31 GMT 12
This is a very interesting thread ,just like a lolly scramble ,but one does wonder why does the sport continues with SNZ if 99.9 of there volunteers are of subject to open house criticism .
|
|
|
|
Post by nakifans on Mar 21, 2024 10:29:41 GMT 12
If the Miers/Rees incident had occurred on the straights would it occur the same ruling/ penalty or does the ruling only apply 1/2 and 3/4. I thought when ruling introduced it was too stop straight lining from straights into the corners. Only applies in turn 1 an 3… oh that note if your a drive an don’t know where turn 1/3 an where turn 2/4 start should you be racing 🤣 Too put you at ease NOT a competitor, but definition of starts to turn 1/3 not defined by markings on wall since 013 as previously stated by someone else The question was if same infringement happened on the straights would it occur the same infringement of over aggressive as in the turns. If it was different competitors would we have the same attention to the incident . |
|
