|
Post by turnright on Feb 28, 2023 12:52:44 GMT 12
Dose anyone have the rule as it is written in the rule book? It seems to me as if it is 100% up to the referee as there in no explanation what so ever other than it saying no over aggressive attacking in turns 1 and 3, I have heard people mention disengaging before hitting wall like Humphries did at palmy, is this fact or just peoples thoughts, I can't for the life of me see how 28s attack was worse than 94p attack yet total different penalty and couple people have mentioned to me its because 28s didn't disengage before hitting wall??
|
|
|
Post by hbhornets on Feb 28, 2023 13:15:11 GMT 12
What are the rules around Run offs. Thought they used team racing rules. Minus you can't stop.
|
|
|
Post by Macgor on Feb 28, 2023 13:23:24 GMT 12
What are the rules around Run offs. Thought they used team racing rules. Minus you can't stop. They did away with that, normal racing rules apply.
|
|
|
Post by hienekenno1 on Feb 28, 2023 14:10:26 GMT 12
Basically thats the problem,to many bloody rules,i knew your not aloud to straight line in turn one and three except in teams racing?,which i thought was over aggression,so basically if you disengage and go in again everything is all sweet even if you go in sideways when i thought it was bumper to bumper,i am confused.
|
|
|
Post by turnright on Feb 28, 2023 14:57:27 GMT 12
Basically thats the problem,to many bloody rules,i knew your not aloud to straight line in turn one and three except in teams racing?,which i thought was over aggression,so basically if you disengage and go in again everything is all sweet even if you go in sideways when i thought it was bumper to bumper,i am confused. My argument to that is how do you know your not aloud too straight line?? Where is this written in rulebook?? My point is how do new people to the class/sport, either drivers or spectators, find out these so called rules, the only rule written in the snz rulebook is "no over aggressive attacking in turns 1 and 3", there is absolutely 0 definition of what is over aggressive so the rule is 100 open to opinion. Alot of people say this is the rule or that is the rule but it's not written anywhere in the book.
|
|
|
Post by turnright on Feb 28, 2023 15:23:09 GMT 12
A little off topic but same principle.
Ministock motor setback rule as stated in rule book is 650mm, then there is a part saying, on all measurements stated in rule book there is 25mm tolerance either side of those measurements but no exception to minimum or maximum measurements when talking material spec. When you go to get cvi/greensheet that piece of paper it says no tolerance to the 650mm and thats what scruitineers and most tracks i have been to with kids is the rule they follow.
Now my point is if that's the rule why is it not in the rulebook? and how can you enforce a rule that is not written in rulebook but on a piece of paper that scrutineers only get?? So in my opinion the rule has to be enforced as 650mm+/- 25mm because I have built my car to the rulebook.
Same goes with over aggressive attacking, the rule is there but no definition of it so how can 1 person say that was aggressive and the next hit isn't,
how can rules be policed when a) it's not there b) theres no detail to describe the rule as with over aggressive attacking
|
|
|
Post by Roxcyford on Feb 28, 2023 17:38:24 GMT 12
With this aggressive rule being amped up by the referees looks like NZ superstock champs will be a fizzer. .
|
|
|
Post by midway on Feb 28, 2023 18:55:48 GMT 12
With this aggressive rule being amped up by the referees looks like NZ superstock champs will be a fizzer. . Couldnt be any flatter than that Taranaki BEER surely ...
|
|
|
Post by percy on Feb 28, 2023 20:20:30 GMT 12
Well folks, what a situation we have before us.
Where do I start? The intention of the over-aggressive attacking rule is one I support. We can not go faster and faster in 1500kg machines and ignore the consequences of drivers being subjected to larger and larger forces. The areas where drivers are subjected to the largest forces are where a stationary car gets hit and at the end of the straight when drivers are travelling at maximum velocity. So the intention of rules in these two areas is admirable.
With any rule there will be clear cut applications and situations that are grey areas. Over-aggressive attacking is particularly troublesome as it is hard to capture the type of contact we are trying to stop whilst still allowing lower levels of contact.
This furor begins at the global 248's with the 94p hit on 5g and the referee not deeming this to be over-aggressive attacking. I get that SNZ does not want to throw their referees under the proverbial bus, but if ever there was an example to be made this was it. That hit was a clear cut case of over-aggressive attacking and if you were to make a video of what not to do, that hit would be near the start of the video. Some have tried to justify it with a technical argument of non-continuous contact. However, continuous contact is not required and a bunt and hit technique still constitutes over-aggressive attacking.
Now fast forward to the Grand Prix and the 28s hit on 73a. Was this over-aggressive attacking? Well, this is where we start entering more of the grey area. But lets apply the principles as reported by Barry Brown on the other thread.
1; The driver drove the other competitor(s) into the wall at turn one and three. Yes. The contact from 28s puts 73a into the wall. From the one angle I have seen they end up in turn 4 but contact with the wall appears to be initiated in turn 3. A different angle may provide another perspective.
2; The contact was constant or near constant at the time of collision with the wall Yes. The cars are in constant contact or close to it from the time contact was initiated
3. The act was determined and intentional. This for me is the interesting one. Does it mean the contact was intentional or the act of putting 73a into the turn 3 wall was intentional? Because the contact was quite clearly intentional but was 28s trying to wall 73a? This was easy to determine in the 94p vs 5g incident but not so easy to determine in this one. What was 28s trying to do? Was he trying to take 73a to the wall or trying to bounce off him? This requires a detailed analysis of where wheels are pointing and whether 28s could have conceivably bounced off 73a and made the corner given the speed he took into the corner.
Having reviewed the hit it appears to me the initial intention may not have been to put 73a into the wall. 28s throws it in hard. But when contact is initially made, it half spins the 28s towards the wall and from that point on it appears he deliberately drivers 73a into the wall. So in this instance I can see the referees point of view in deeming this determined and intentional.
We now have a situation where everyone is completely confused given the two hits and the respective ramifications. To me there is a lack of transparency for drivers, fans and every non-referee as to what is and what is not over-aggressive attacking. Out of the 125 drivers entered for the NZ Title this weekend I doubt too many have a grip on what over-aggressive attacking is.
I suspect the drivers briefing this Friday will be one of the more volatile. Oh to be a fly on the wall.
|
|
|
Post by Ramjam on Feb 28, 2023 20:24:02 GMT 12
BarryB makes a good point that if u attack "over aggressively" in either T1 or T3 you should face no penalty cause from what I can('t) see, all references in either the book or the snz memo to ref's say turn 1 and turn 3
|
|
|
Post by hienekenno1 on Feb 28, 2023 20:51:01 GMT 12
All I know is the enjoyment of watching Superstock racing is slowly being taken away, will be just F1 Stockcar racing soon 🙁🇬🇧
|
|
|
Post by midway on Feb 28, 2023 22:47:03 GMT 12
It is quiet interesting how all of a sudden these rules have triggered so much discussion Did dads army decide to send them out by morse code to all the refs ,so now theyre secretly in force to the unexpected who know nothing about the change in tactics as such .. Could it be suggested that paper work from a inquiry has prompted this type of rule change to be adhered to safe guard those being attacked ..
Percys big blue bottle blow fly may report the hostility that could be pending at drivers briefing at the super stock champs ...
|
|
|
Post by mcfly on Mar 3, 2023 16:51:41 GMT 12
Well folks, what a situation we have before us. This furor begins at the global 248's with the 94p hit on 5g and the referee not deeming this to be over-aggressive attacking. I get that SNZ does not want to throw their referees under the proverbial bus, but if ever there was an example to be made this was it. That hit was a clear cut case of over-aggressive attacking and if you were to make a video of what not to do, that hit would be near the start of the video. Some have tried to justify it with a technical argument of non-continuous contact. However, continuous contact is not required and a bunt and hit technique still constitutes over-aggressive attacking. Can you share the actual text from the rule book that backs up your claim of "but if ever there was an example to be made this was it. That hit was a clear cut case of over-aggressive attacking and if you were to make a video of what not to do, that hit would be near the start of the video."?
|
|
|
Post by percy on Mar 3, 2023 17:20:34 GMT 12
mcfly I think your query has probably been answered in this thread and others but there has been a lot of copy on this topic so fair enough to ask the question The rule in the rule book is as follows: OVER AGGRESSIVE-ATTACKING R12-3-34 Over-aggressive attacking is not permitted in turns 1 and 3. Barry Brown has elsewhere written the principles that have been developed to determine what constitutes over aggressive attacking (and I've gone through them in my analysis of the 73a/28s incident). The 94p/5g hit was clearly a breach of all three principles and the intention of the rule.
|
|
|
Post by hbhornets on Mar 3, 2023 17:35:56 GMT 12
mcfly I think your query has probably been answered in this thread and others but there has been a lot of copy on this topic so fair enough to ask the question The rule in the rule book is as follows: OVER AGGRESSIVE-ATTACKING R12-3-34 Over-aggressive attacking is not permitted in turns 1 and 3. Barry Brown has elsewhere written the principles that have been developed to determine what constitutes over aggressive attacking (and I've gone through them in my analysis of the 73a/28s incident). The 94p/5g hit was clearly a breach of all three principles and the intention of the rule. How much truth to the matter that is was brought in because you didn't know who was gonna attack you in individual titles so to make it safer. Should the rule even exist in run offs because like teams racing you know who is gonna hit you.
|
|
|
Post by Roxcyford on Mar 6, 2023 17:30:14 GMT 12
I note on the speedway nz infringement page it shows the infringement, but not the penalty, what is there to hide?? .
|
|
|
Post by Roxcyford on Mar 6, 2023 17:36:26 GMT 12
With this aggressive rule being amped up by the referees looks like NZ superstock champs will be a fizzer. . Couldnt be any flatter than that Taranaki BEER surely ... as my dad would say, they who laughs last, has the longest laugh .
|
|
|
Post by graemeh on Mar 6, 2023 18:50:31 GMT 12
I note on the speedway nz infringement page it shows the infringement, but not the penalty, what is there to hide?? . Not 100% sure but there is a section in the Rule Book that has fixed penalties for each offence so would explain no penalty in the list of infringements, so nothing to hide the two go hand in hand.
|
|
|
Post by turnright on Mar 6, 2023 20:07:41 GMT 12
I note on the speedway nz infringement page it shows the infringement, but not the penalty, what is there to hide?? . Not 100% sure but there is a section in the Rule Book that has fixed penalties for each offence so would explain no penalty in the list of infringements, so nothing to hide the two go hand in hand. 100% correct, fixed penalties now days that relate to each rule breach,
|
|
|
Post by Phred on Mar 11, 2023 7:24:21 GMT 12
This is a very complex topic 1. If racing is not exciting spectators wont attend 2. This rule is impossible to define 3. This undefined rule is impossible to enforce with consistency
Personally not clear what this "rule" is intended to do. Injuries may have more to do with angles than actual impact. It could be argued that there is less likely to be injury if someone is wound forwards into the wall off the end of the straight as opposed to being slapped sideways mid corner. I am not aware of the mechanics and science involved but thinking back through the last 45 years of watching these things it seems there has been more knock outs and injuries from mid corner hits that the more spectacular straight line hits.
|
|