Is a rule change in order? (Read 2,086 times)

[Beatle]

I have an opinion on a couple of the team racing rules.The rule on being allowed to hit a parked car in a stationary position should be abolished.You should not be allowed to attack from a stationary position and if you are stationary for more than two laps you are technically out of the race. This has been trialled already and proven to be successful.This will take away two of the most dangerous acts in the sport and less red light stoppages.

[MadMarty13B]

Those two rules would go hand in hand,if you cannot attack from a staionery position then an attacker has no need to attack a stationery car,wheres its become grey is that stationery cars have played possum then after a few laps a runner thinks hes safe then wammo.

[41acrew]

Hess ovaaaa

[Abb0]

Dec 8, 2008 5:49:07 GMT 12 41acrew said:

Hess ovaaaa

[Beatle]

Translated does that mean "he's over".

[supastoka]

Why would we want to change the rules ? In my 30 years of watching stockcar racing and teams racing the rules have been watered down to much already at the end of the day the drivers know the rules when they go out onto the track so why then either complain later or try and have them changed , if you dont like them dont teams race , i have seen many a graet teams race won by an attack from a supposed crippled car it all adds to the intrigue of the race really , so in my opinion it aint broke dont fix it

[petero]

quote from Supastoka - "i have seen many a graet teams race won by an attack from a supposed crippled car it all adds to the intrigue of the race really , so in my opinion it aint broke dont fix it "

It may not answer Beattles original question, however as a long time spectator, I recall why the Wildcats were soooo good, any crippled or stationery car, they made sure it stayed that way, took it's front end out etc, done in such a way as not to kill either driver and the Wildcats drive away, or if crippled themselves, stayed on any car they thought could be mobile.

smart driving won them many a championship,
yes it does add to the excitement if a car that is barely able to move can stop another car or change the course of a race - as many of us spectators will have great memories of.

Drivers and spectators will always have different views.
We like the entertainment value - but not at the expense of the driver of course

Perhaps Beatle can expand on a drivers perspective.
He has truly shown the commitment to be a teams driver - how many would pull out in front of another car at full speed -
What I would expect is not many teams racers would give up if the car is stationary and any chance of getting mobile, even one inch, to stop, slow or upset another car.

PeterO

[MENTL1]

I think theres a diffence between a stationary car and a stationary car in a attacking position.

On sat nite I saw a car parked in the corner out by the wall in a stationary position wheels still pointing forward etc no chance of attacking anthing (well until he got the thing moblie again anyway) then in comes a car and slams it in the backside at full noise. man that must of hurt and in my eyes it wasnt really called for, he could of at least hit him in the front taking out his front end.

but In saying that he was only doing what the rules aloud him to do so which is only fair.

I just think that they sould just sharpin up the rules alittle thats all.

[eddiek]

It is interesting sitting in on preracing drivers briefings when clarifications on rules are brought up by the competitors to both club and SNZ officials who are going to be refereeing on the night.

Prior to teams racing at Huntly the matter of stationary cars was brought up during the drivers briefing.
The fact that these questions even get asked at drivers briefings suggest there are shades of grey on the matter, and some clarification is in order in the rulebook.

[MadMarty13B]

Not quite, there is a code of ethics thats works quite well written by two representatives from all tracks with SNZ that included many legendary teams drivers,this was some years ago and the problems have been minimal since,the hit you described mental comes down to the code of ethics.Depending on the race situation I would have either watched that car for any lift in the suspension to indicate if it was going to move at the same time watching its front wheels, if I saw nothing depending on the race situation I would have 1 carried on,2 driven into its front wheels 3 parked myself to keep it pinned by the wall, I would not have driven into it full noise in the rear because 1 its against the code of ethics,2 It would have been a bloody stupid thing to do as would have done more damage to the driver in the stationary car rather than the car myself,and probably would have done unessecary damage to my car or even knocked myself out or something.
Another point from Beatles post that dosent work is this. If a rule is brought in that a car cannot attack from a stationary position,and must be moving then take in this picture, last lap blocking cannot wait stationary has to keep moving runner comes round slows down to a snails pace like the blocker both cross the finishes line after what seems an eternity end of race, it wont work.

[MadMarty13B]

Dec 8, 2008 22:44:15 GMT 12 @eddiek said:

It is interesting sitting in on preracing drivers briefs when clarifications on rules are brought up by the competitors to both club and SNZ officials who are going to be refereeing on the night.

Prior to teams racing at Huntly the matter of stationary cars was brought up during the drivers briefing.
The fact that these questions even get asked at drivers briefs suggest there are enough shades of grey on the matter, and some clarification is in order in the rulebook.

all they need to do is read the code of ethics
when this is referred to at palmy drivers are told to go by the code of ethics,at the end of the day I would like to think that no person would intentionaly want to hurt another person,if they did then they are not worth one bit of respect.

[eddiek]

I don't believe anyone would either, Marty. And looking at your earlier post, you've pretty much got it bang on.
The general consensus at the Huntly meeting was that a minimal movement made the target fair game.

But how official is 'the code of ethics'? Are they rules set in stone (or the rulebook, which probably IS carved in stone), or merely a gentleman's agreement?

[MadMarty13B]

Its more of a gentlemans agreement and a moral person would follow them

[TheFanVan.co.nz]

Dec 7, 2008 22:37:02 GMT 12 Beatle said:

You should not be allowed to attack from a stationary position

so you cannot attack another car when the flag drops? as that would be attacking friom a stationary position.

When does a car cease being stationary, once it starts moving its no longer stationary.

Rules are fine as is.

[Deleted]

If Beatle thinks the rules should possibly be looked at, then I think we should at least hear him out seeing he's the only current driver that has posted.

Perhaps cars should be allowed to attack from stationary, but no attacking on stationary cars?

This would eliminate some injuries, yet still allow for action as the crowd wants.

[TheFanVan.co.nz]

basil

I think this rule was introduced to allow attacking stationary cars as a direct result of cars attacking from a stationary position, i think from memory on the SMS Teams champs DVD compliation there were some examples by Wellington cars (fast eddie springs to mind)

If a car wants to sit and attack then they must be considered fair game, otherwise eveyone would do it knowing that they could not be attacked. It has to work both ways.

[Deleted]

Dec 9, 2008 13:59:31 GMT 12 TheFanVan.co.nz said:

I think this rule was introduced to allow attacking stationary cars as a direct result of cars attacking from a stationary position

Still, it doesnt really seem to happen a whole lot. And you'd have to be some certain kind of crazy to do it. Can always park a car in front of them, so they cant attack from stationary?

The main point of my post was to counter those posters dismissing Beatle's query without a second thought. He's the only one out there doing it, so we should respect his opinion. Or else there could be no drivers left who are willing to teams race!

[The Observer]

Dec 8, 2008 22:57:27 GMT 12 MadMarty13B said:

Its more of a gentlemans agreement and a moral person would follow them

Where is this code of ethics? Is it an SNZ document?

Is it downloadable or printable?

Be good to at least read it.

How many of the drivers who developed it still race? By that i mean, how many still follow it?

Its definitly not something thats distributed once you enter the world of teams racing.

[TimSOZ]

Every competitor should have a copy - it's page 208 and 209 of the current rulebook, Section R12-4.
But here is the unedited version for clarity's sake:-

SUPER STOCK and STOCKCAR TEAMS RACING CODE OF ETHICS
Teams racing is a very exciting and competitive form of racing with many added responsibilities on competitors, crews, officials and Promotions.
It is the responsibility of the competitor to present his vehicle within the rules at all times. He must be aware of the SNZ rule book pertaining to super stock and stockcar racing and teams racing. It is the responsibility of the team manager to make sure that all of his competitors DO in fact know the rules and the consequences of breaking those rules.
Competitors must realise that the Referee is in control of the racing and is responsible for the safety of competitors during racing. No official or competitor wants a race stopped.
However, if the referee has to stop a race it must be accepted that a competitor is in an unsafe situation, or a competitor wants to be removed from the race. A competitor who in the opinion of the referee is repeatedly offending may be excluded and removed from a race at any time. All competitors must obey a referee's direction, often carried out through an infield official.

R12-4 SUPER STOCK and STOCKCAR TEAMS RACING RULES:
(a) Teams races begin with clutch starts only. The display of red light or flags signifies the stopping of a race immediately even if your race is run. Competitors must not pass other competitors, nor move to any other position unless instructed by an official. Competitors may freely proceed under green or orange lights or
flags.
(b) Placing one or more wheels inside the pole line is considered breaking the rules of racing, repeated offences may attract a penalty and/or a fine.
(c) A competitor forced infield must give way once pushed over the pole line and return to the race once the track is clear.
Passing inside the pole line will attract either a fine and/or the team may be excluded. The infield is not for racing, any vehicles on the infield must disengage from contact and return to the track in the same corner or straight from which they left the track.
(d) Attacking another competitor from inside pole line will attract either a fine or individual exclusion on the driver and/or the team may be excluded.
(e) Any competitor deliberately driving infield (to avoid oncoming cars) for a sanctuary (to gain advantage) will attract a fine on the driver, or the driver may be excluded.
(f) Forcing competing cars into stationary cars will attract either a fine, individual exclusion and/or the team may be excluded.
The situation of stationary cars is of the utmost importance.
Competitors who wish to be removed from their vehicle must give the "thumbs down” signal, motionless drivers will obviously bring the race to a red flag stop.
Drivers on the racing surface in a blocking role will be considered to be part of the race and must realise that deliberate contact may occur.
Attacking cars MUST avoid cars that are in a non attacking position.
(Any inference that one can legitimately hit all stationary cars has been removed from the rules.)
(g) Drivers must only drive in the correct direction. When the way is blocked by the wall or another vehicle one may reverse to clear the obstruction.
Drivers must not travel in the wrong direction unless the way is blocked by the wall or another vehicle.
When travelling in the wrong direction as just mentioned the track must be clear of on-coming vehicles, deliberate contact when travelling in the wrong direction will attract a fine, and/or individual exclusion, and/or the Team may be excluded.
(h) Drivers may select reverse gear to move in the race direction without penalty.
Drivers may select reverse gear to cross to the track surface from the infield by the shortest route. When travelling onto the track as just mentioned the track must be clear of on-coming vehicles.
Drivers who reverse travelling in the wrong direction to reposition on the track will attract a fine.
(i) The winning team will be decided by 'first past the post' or points. Promotions must clearly advertise the chosen system and any points that will be awarded.
(j) Team managers must act in a responsible and professional manner and may seek verbal clarifications from the Steward and drivers representative. Team managers may assist with paper work requirements and gain driver's signatures as required.
The Team Manager's name must be submitted at the time of team entry, any changes to team or manager to be submitted in writing to the Steward of the meeting.
(k) Abusive conduct by competitors and/or managers against other competitors or officials will be treated as a breach of conduct and may attract a penalty on the team concerned.
(l) When a senior Referee is in control of teams racing, NO protests can be entered into.
(m) Penalties - at the discretion of the referee
- Fine: $100 to $500
- Individual Exclusion (from the meeting), an exclusion in any one race by a non winning driver is not a penalty.
- Team Exclusion

[MENTL1]

Dec 9, 2008 15:26:04 GMT 12 TimSOZ said:

Drivers on the racing surface in a blocking role will be considered to be part of the race and must realise that deliberate contact may occur.
Attacking cars MUST avoid cars that are in a non attacking position.