Post by percy on Mar 9, 2015 19:23:08 GMT 12
OK folks I think it's worth analysing this hit in regards to the over-aggressive attacking rule.
This is the most talked about rule this season so I think it is beneficial to discuss the rule in the context of an incident where a driver wasn't pulled off/fined etc.
We have already established in the other thread that the race in question was an individual race, not a teams race.
The rule as it stands is as follows:
R12-3-34 Over-aggressive attacking is not permitted in turns 1 and 3
In addition to the rule the SNZ board who developed the rule gave us some aids to assist in interpreting what over-aggressive attacking is.
• the speed differential between the two cars that make contact
• the speed at which an attacked car collides with the wall after a hit
• the damage suffered to cars
• the injuries suffered by drivers
The first thing to note is that unlike the old rule, over-aggressive attacking can happen in the first corner of a race provided it fits the criteria.
To me the speed differential point is designed to allow a running car to hit a block car in turns 1 & 3 without fear of being pinged under this rule. In this instance both cars were doing a similar speed as it was at the start of a race and both cars were on the gas.
The second point looks at the speed of the attacked car on impact with the wall. In this instance the speed was in the slow/medium range as the start line at Waikaraka is close to turn 1 and cars had not yet had the opportunity to reach maximum speed.
The third point is one I struggle with and considers damage to cars. I struggle with it because sometimes big hits result in minimal damage. Consider from the weekend Hodge straightlining the Stratford car in the semi. Both ended up driving away. Then consider Scott Miers hit on Asher Rees that bent the siderail something chronic and ultimately contributed to a race ending fire. In individual racing hit 1 was over-aggressive and hit 2 totally legal! In this instance the attacked car did sustain some damaged but it was by no means obliterated. The attacked car was able to continue (after some laps) before retiring to the grass.
The fourth point I also struggle with like point #3 and considers injury to drivers. I'm not aware of any injury to the driver.
Overall I think it's reasonably clear that this was not an example of over-aggressive attacking and the officials got this one right. The key point in this instance is point #2 and the lack of speed of the attacked car upon impact with the wall.
I think the new rule is working well and it came through this incident with flying colours.
This is the most talked about rule this season so I think it is beneficial to discuss the rule in the context of an incident where a driver wasn't pulled off/fined etc.
We have already established in the other thread that the race in question was an individual race, not a teams race.
The rule as it stands is as follows:
R12-3-34 Over-aggressive attacking is not permitted in turns 1 and 3
In addition to the rule the SNZ board who developed the rule gave us some aids to assist in interpreting what over-aggressive attacking is.
• the speed differential between the two cars that make contact
• the speed at which an attacked car collides with the wall after a hit
• the damage suffered to cars
• the injuries suffered by drivers
The first thing to note is that unlike the old rule, over-aggressive attacking can happen in the first corner of a race provided it fits the criteria.
To me the speed differential point is designed to allow a running car to hit a block car in turns 1 & 3 without fear of being pinged under this rule. In this instance both cars were doing a similar speed as it was at the start of a race and both cars were on the gas.
The second point looks at the speed of the attacked car on impact with the wall. In this instance the speed was in the slow/medium range as the start line at Waikaraka is close to turn 1 and cars had not yet had the opportunity to reach maximum speed.
The third point is one I struggle with and considers damage to cars. I struggle with it because sometimes big hits result in minimal damage. Consider from the weekend Hodge straightlining the Stratford car in the semi. Both ended up driving away. Then consider Scott Miers hit on Asher Rees that bent the siderail something chronic and ultimately contributed to a race ending fire. In individual racing hit 1 was over-aggressive and hit 2 totally legal! In this instance the attacked car did sustain some damaged but it was by no means obliterated. The attacked car was able to continue (after some laps) before retiring to the grass.
The fourth point I also struggle with like point #3 and considers injury to drivers. I'm not aware of any injury to the driver.
Overall I think it's reasonably clear that this was not an example of over-aggressive attacking and the officials got this one right. The key point in this instance is point #2 and the lack of speed of the attacked car upon impact with the wall.
I think the new rule is working well and it came through this incident with flying colours.
