November 2013 Fastrack
- Thread starter pfrichardson
- Start date
November Fastrack Preliminary Minutes/Tech Bulletin
10/4/13- Preliminary Minutes
10/4/13- Preliminary Tech Bulletin
10/4/13- Preliminary Minutes
10/4/13- Preliminary Tech Bulletin
RSTPerformance
New member
That was a quick read...
Did I ever mention I love that Pam posts this thread every month!
Raymond
Did I ever mention I love that Pam posts this thread every month!
Raymond
I would have thought that the person who allegedly backed into a competitors car on pit lane and burned rubber while pushing him backwards would have made the bulletin with some type of action.......
Maybe it was all rumor at the ruboffs but there seemed to be multiple sources and similar versions. Which is sort of the definition of a rumor......
Maybe it was all rumor at the ruboffs but there seemed to be multiple sources and similar versions. Which is sort of the definition of a rumor......
It was no rumor...but he did not appeal*. Instead, he got really smart and figuratively got down on his knees and begged for forgiveness. Which was a really smart move, infinitely smarter than the move that precipitated it.
- GA
* No appeal, no appearance in Fastrack. I suspect a list of RFA's and protests from the Runoffs would fill a small book. they had three (four?) SoM groups in an on-call rotation for the week to handle the load.
- GA
* No appeal, no appearance in Fastrack. I suspect a list of RFA's and protests from the Runoffs would fill a small book. they had three (four?) SoM groups in an on-call rotation for the week to handle the load.
Ding. I think there is a need for a comprehensive and accessible list of CSAs and RFAs.
1. I want to know the habits of those against whom I race so I am aware of them while on track.
2. In deciding whether to throw paper, I would like to know if this was a single instance of being a bonehead or a long history of being a bonehead.
The Redbook was going to be used by stewards in determining penalties or something or other (it never was clear what the double-secret probation was going to accomplish) and was going to be SUPER SECRET except for the stewards in filing charges. This would be used by drivers to protect themselves and in deciding whether to file charges.
Terry Hanushek
Member
Greg
It has been normal to have about a dozen SOM (mainly Exec Stewards and a couple of deputies) on three or four courts. As I recall, there were an average of 50-70 actions during the Runoffs (sometimes a bit higher if there was a full moon). In the mid 90's, the SOM would create brief summaries of their actions to be publicly available (posted at the base of the MO tower) but somewhere that train got derailed. Too bad, it was a good effort.
Terry
It has been normal to have about a dozen SOM (mainly Exec Stewards and a couple of deputies) on three or four courts. As I recall, there were an average of 50-70 actions during the Runoffs (sometimes a bit higher if there was a full moon). In the mid 90's, the SOM would create brief summaries of their actions to be publicly available (posted at the base of the MO tower) but somewhere that train got derailed. Too bad, it was a good effort.
Terry
Not clear what the implications of that statement are (maybe I missed a prior discussion?) The purpose of the non-super-secret Redbook is for NEDiv chief stewards (who are different at each event) to have a record of recent driver actions, ones that did not necessarily rise to the level of requiring an overt punishment (e.g., probation, suspension) but could indicate a concerning trend. If drivers do not have any subsequent incidents within a short period of time (one year?), they are dropped from the list.
Said slightly differently, other than official probations, suspensions, and license points, stewards had no way to observe and track subsequent driver actions to establish trends, which could indicate a need for harsher penalties for that person. The Redbook addresses that void.
- GA
It wasn't going to capture trends, or at least it wasn't the way it was presented here --
1. Only the stewards were to have access to the nuclear football. So, it was kind of super secret.
2. Only actions where the SoMs punished someone would have been recorded. Get dinged by a CSA on 10 consecutive race weekends? The Red Book says you are as pure as Christ.
3. Today's incident would be modified by prior actions. The CS, prior to his judgement, wouldn't view today's incident in the lens of how serious it was; he would view today's contact as biased by the same-level of contact you had 3 weeks ago. If the previous CS sent it off to the SoMs, then his judgement of the seriousness of today's incident would be biased. Either what you did today justified a CSA or a RFA or it didn't. What you did 3 weeks ago is irrelevant.
7.4.B. Penalties imposed by the Chief Steward do not incur penalty points.
Right there is the weak link in both the Redbook and the SCCA punishment process. Get put to last for contact via a CSA? Your record is clean. Get dinged by the SoMs? You've got points. How many Stewards are going to refer a cut-and-dry case to the SoMs when they've got the easy button right there?
Not sure what your agenda is, and I don't really care. And I don't think you understand the point. And I don't feel like Internet-arguing today.
Feel free to contact the Divisional Executive Steward and/or your Area BoD rep if you'd like more info on the program. - GA
Feel free to contact the Divisional Executive Steward and/or your Area BoD rep if you'd like more info on the program. - GA
lawtonglenn
New member
I just want to know why nobody has pointed out the amusing incongruence of a homophone of his surname, to an attribute generally not associated with success in our sport
