no penelty for dungey?

Sondy132001
Posts
4045
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Mission Viejo, CA US
9/1/2011 11:17am Edited Date/Time 9/1/2011 11:18am
APLMAN99 wrote:
No, we call them "pits", but apparently they aren't. At least according to the rule book. And I wasn't referring to the roped off areas, I...
No, we call them "pits", but apparently they aren't. At least according to the rule book.

And I wasn't referring to the roped off areas, I was referring to the strips between the roped off areas.
pits ? paddock ? same difference. strips where ?? in the pits/paddock ??

S
FreshTopEnd
Posts
12477
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA US
Fantasy
4133rd
9/1/2011 11:17am
No, I don't agree. And I don't think it meets the definition of the pits.

I can tell you why and I think we could have an interesting debate continuing out of it, but I don't have the time now to sketch it out any more than I already have. Maybe if the thread is alive in a day or two, but even then it's just going to be an academic exercise.

I also think the paddock and pit definition really don't matter at this point because neither fits at Southwick as precisely as the argument you want to engage in supposes.

Because the road has been put to multiple overlapping uses, it's not clear how the rule fits, but it is pretty clear that Goose doing what he had to do ratcheted up the precise risk the speed limit addresses. The facility should exist to enable Goose to do what he has to do, and if the nature of the facility creates issues there and it's ambiguous how the rule applies, then it's not appropriate to apply the rule to punish him or Dungey or the hypothetical 40th qualifier for that matter.

There's also a legal saying that hard cases make bad law. This is a pretty exceptional situation made even more unique by how remote the rig parking is from the starting line. To me, it's exactly the sort of situation where a referee should exercise discretion to come to the right result. The instinct generally should be to not punish, at least until there's an established pattern of indifference to the rules.

Seriously, I can't go any further right now. I have to turn to paying arguments.
FreshTopEnd
Posts
12477
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA US
Fantasy
4133rd
9/1/2011 11:24am
APLMAN99 wrote:
No, we call them "pits", but apparently they aren't. At least according to the rule book. And I wasn't referring to the roped off areas, I...
No, we call them "pits", but apparently they aren't. At least according to the rule book.

And I wasn't referring to the roped off areas, I was referring to the strips between the roped off areas.
pits ? paddock ? same difference. strips where ?? in the pits/paddock ??

S
They are treated differently. What we refer to as the pits generally is the paddock in the rule. The rule may be lifted from road courses, where you have a garage/paddock area and the pits are the immediate working area on both sides of the wall where stuff goes on during the race. The concept fits out door motocross more or less neatly depending on the way a given facility is laid out. At least that's what helped me as I tried to sift through the rule.
APLMAN99
Posts
10055
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
9/1/2011 11:25am
APLMAN99 wrote:
No, we call them "pits", but apparently they aren't. At least according to the rule book. And I wasn't referring to the roped off areas, I...
No, we call them "pits", but apparently they aren't. At least according to the rule book.

And I wasn't referring to the roped off areas, I was referring to the strips between the roped off areas.
pits ? paddock ? same difference. strips where ?? in the pits/paddock ??

S
Apparently they aren't the same difference......

What most of us have always called the pits, aren't.

The strips of ground I am talking about are between the semis and awnings, where we walks around the pits, er, paddock.....

The Shop

Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
9/1/2011 11:41am
No, I don't agree. And I don't think it meets the definition of the pits. I can tell you why and I think we could have...
No, I don't agree. And I don't think it meets the definition of the pits.

I can tell you why and I think we could have an interesting debate continuing out of it, but I don't have the time now to sketch it out any more than I already have. Maybe if the thread is alive in a day or two, but even then it's just going to be an academic exercise.

I also think the paddock and pit definition really don't matter at this point because neither fits at Southwick as precisely as the argument you want to engage in supposes.

Because the road has been put to multiple overlapping uses, it's not clear how the rule fits, but it is pretty clear that Goose doing what he had to do ratcheted up the precise risk the speed limit addresses. The facility should exist to enable Goose to do what he has to do, and if the nature of the facility creates issues there and it's ambiguous how the rule applies, then it's not appropriate to apply the rule to punish him or Dungey or the hypothetical 40th qualifier for that matter.

There's also a legal saying that hard cases make bad law. This is a pretty exceptional situation made even more unique by how remote the rig parking is from the starting line. To me, it's exactly the sort of situation where a referee should exercise discretion to come to the right result. The instinct generally should be to not punish, at least until there's an established pattern of indifference to the rules.

Seriously, I can't go any further right now. I have to turn to paying arguments.
I agree that hard cases make bad law. Spirit of the law (rule) should mean more than letter of the rule.

But I was being accused of not doing my research (not by you) and I figured you'd be the guy who could be the voice of reason about the fact that the paddock, as defined, does not include the road. I realize the "spirit" of the rule may lead us away from the letter in this case, and I agree with you on that, if the spirit is to keep fans from being endangered by speeding motorcycles. But that's not laid out in the book, either.

And "research" means looking at the book and checking the letters in black and white. And what's in black and white in the rulebook does not contradict what's in black and white in my article.
Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
9/1/2011 11:43am
APLMAN99 wrote:
No, we call them "pits", but apparently they aren't. At least according to the rule book. And I wasn't referring to the roped off areas, I...
No, we call them "pits", but apparently they aren't. At least according to the rule book.

And I wasn't referring to the roped off areas, I was referring to the strips between the roped off areas.
pits ? paddock ? same difference. strips where ?? in the pits/paddock ??

S
APLMAN99 wrote:
Apparently they aren't the same difference...... What most of us have always called the pits, aren't. The strips of ground I am talking about are between...
Apparently they aren't the same difference......

What most of us have always called the pits, aren't.

The strips of ground I am talking about are between the semis and awnings, where we walks around the pits, er, paddock.....
The areas, in general, where the rigs are parked are "the paddock" as defined, which means the areas you walk around the pits are "the paddock", and there is a speed limit in that area of 10 mph. And Goose, to my best estimation, did not break that speed limit in that area. I have video. I was there.
JLong
Posts
623
Joined
7/19/2010
Location
Haslet, TX US
9/1/2011 11:47am
I'll bet anyone here the three dollars in my pocket that the rule was written to keep pissed off riders from racing back to their pit after an ass whipping on the track.
CamP
Posts
6828
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX US
9/1/2011 11:57am
The paddocks/pits, staging and racetrack are usually contiguous. At Southwick they have a multi-use road between between the pits and the staging area. I think you can expand scope of the AMA's speed limit rule to include that area, because it is a safety issue wherever bikes and people intersect.

That being said, I've heard that Southwick requires participants to push their bikes through that area during normal races.
CamP
Posts
6828
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX US
9/1/2011 12:00pm
JLong wrote:
I'll bet anyone here the three dollars in my pocket that the rule was written to keep pissed off riders from racing back to their pit...
I'll bet anyone here the three dollars in my pocket that the rule was written to keep pissed off riders from racing back to their pit after an ass whipping on the track.
I've had some close calls with those guys.
raddad
Posts
2287
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Wrenshall, MN US
9/1/2011 12:10pm
JLong wrote:
I'll bet anyone here the three dollars in my pocket that the rule was written to keep pissed off riders from racing back to their pit...
I'll bet anyone here the three dollars in my pocket that the rule was written to keep pissed off riders from racing back to their pit after an ass whipping on the track.
CamP wrote:
I've had some close calls with those guys.
It's usually the 65-85 kids that race back to the pits, I have had to throw crow bars in their spokes more than once!Wink
peelout
Posts
17859
Joined
1/6/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
9/1/2011 12:38pm
JLong wrote:
I'll bet anyone here the three dollars in my pocket that the rule was written to keep pissed off riders from racing back to their pit...
I'll bet anyone here the three dollars in my pocket that the rule was written to keep pissed off riders from racing back to their pit after an ass whipping on the track.
CamP wrote:
I've had some close calls with those guys.
i got ran right the f*ck over walking in the middle of the grass infield, walking alone, and not even close to a trail/road by a guy trying to make his way to the pits. no he wasn't racing, and no he wasn't on the line.
PressPassP
Posts
3326
Joined
3/3/2010
Location
Ipswich GB
9/1/2011 2:00pm
JLong wrote:
I'll bet anyone here the three dollars in my pocket that the rule was written to keep pissed off riders from racing back to their pit...
I'll bet anyone here the three dollars in my pocket that the rule was written to keep pissed off riders from racing back to their pit after an ass whipping on the track.
CamP wrote:
I've had some close calls with those guys.
peelout wrote:
i got ran right the f*ck over walking in the middle of the grass infield, walking alone, and not even close to a trail/road by a...
i got ran right the f*ck over walking in the middle of the grass infield, walking alone, and not even close to a trail/road by a guy trying to make his way to the pits. no he wasn't racing, and no he wasn't on the line.
I would of thought there would be some kind of speed limit anywhere,weather it's pits/paddock,at the end of the day 3rd or 4th gear pinned on wet pavement with no helmet isn't exactly good anywhere,
TDeath21
Posts
6523
Joined
2/22/2011
Location
Somewhere, MO US
9/1/2011 2:24pm
I thought the AMA would hold up the race for Dungey to be honest. With this close championship, what they did could have ruined it all. Granted it wasn't their fault at all that Dungey's bike wouldn't start, but almost always they bend the rules for a championship contender.

In 2006 SX, RC was given back his 25 points for the fuel infraction. Without that, the championship becomes a 2 way battle and RC loses the championship. We all know that a high lead count doesn't help four strokes, and he shouldn't have been penalized anyway. However, ACCORDING TO THE AMA RULES, the penalty should have stood.

In 2001 MX, Grant Langston's bike wouldn't start on the starting line at High Point. The race was held up for about 10 minutes before they got it going so he could start. At that time, they were only supposed to hold up a race for 2 minutes. So, ACCORDING TO THE AMA RULES, the race should have went on without him and he should have not been able to start the race. However, he was a championship contender and doing that would have also made it a 2 rider battle for the championship.

Do you think an unknown privateer gets his points back in 06? Do you think an unknown privateer holds up a race for 10 minutes in 01? The answer is no. Championship contenders get rules bent for them so they can stay in the championship hunt. This is why I was surprised the race started without him. According to the AMA's past history, they would have held up the race for Dungey.
FreshTopEnd
Posts
12477
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA US
Fantasy
4133rd
9/1/2011 2:33pm
A different entity is running the nationals now than was sanctioning SX or MX in the examples you use. I think they've done a decent job in being firm on rules in a sensible way, across the board on high and low profile riders pretty even handedly, which I guess shouldn't be a surprise given that they've had plenty of rules enforcement experience at LL's.

I'd also distinguish between possible penalty issues that get dealt with at the track and possible penalty issues people on the internet conjure up.
Sondy132001
Posts
4045
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Mission Viejo, CA US
9/1/2011 2:39pm
TDeath21 wrote:
I thought the AMA would hold up the race for Dungey to be honest. With this close championship, what they did could have ruined it all...
I thought the AMA would hold up the race for Dungey to be honest. With this close championship, what they did could have ruined it all. Granted it wasn't their fault at all that Dungey's bike wouldn't start, but almost always they bend the rules for a championship contender.

In 2006 SX, RC was given back his 25 points for the fuel infraction. Without that, the championship becomes a 2 way battle and RC loses the championship. We all know that a high lead count doesn't help four strokes, and he shouldn't have been penalized anyway. However, ACCORDING TO THE AMA RULES, the penalty should have stood.

In 2001 MX, Grant Langston's bike wouldn't start on the starting line at High Point. The race was held up for about 10 minutes before they got it going so he could start. At that time, they were only supposed to hold up a race for 2 minutes. So, ACCORDING TO THE AMA RULES, the race should have went on without him and he should have not been able to start the race. However, he was a championship contender and doing that would have also made it a 2 rider battle for the championship.

Do you think an unknown privateer gets his points back in 06? Do you think an unknown privateer holds up a race for 10 minutes in 01? The answer is no. Championship contenders get rules bent for them so they can stay in the championship hunt. This is why I was surprised the race started without him. According to the AMA's past history, they would have held up the race for Dungey.
Don't think the tv packages were live then ? I also don't think a privateer could swap out an engine like that too.

S
TDeath21
Posts
6523
Joined
2/22/2011
Location
Somewhere, MO US
9/1/2011 3:05pm Edited Date/Time 9/1/2011 3:09pm
Deleted
TDeath21
Posts
6523
Joined
2/22/2011
Location
Somewhere, MO US
9/1/2011 3:09pm
Don't think the tv packages were live then ? I also don't think a privateer could swap out an engine like that too.

S
Let's be honest here, if TV is the main reason they didn't hold up the race then that's pretty sad. The 2nd motos were same day taped so that shouldn't have been an issue. I do remember ESPN or ABC cutting to a commercial when the race was being held for Langston so maybe that was one of the few live ones they did.
Sondy132001
Posts
4045
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Mission Viejo, CA US
9/1/2011 3:19pm
Don't think the tv packages were live then ? I also don't think a privateer could swap out an engine like that too.

S
TDeath21 wrote:
Let's be honest here, if TV is the main reason they didn't hold up the race then that's pretty sad. The 2nd motos were same day...
Let's be honest here, if TV is the main reason they didn't hold up the race then that's pretty sad. The 2nd motos were same day taped so that shouldn't have been an issue. I do remember ESPN or ABC cutting to a commercial when the race was being held for Langston so maybe that was one of the few live ones they did.
you are correct, I read so many posts here they get garbled...

"Sticking to the same schedule we've always had isn't really my fault, but I will take some of the blame for the TV package.

There is no 2-minute rule, and the bike wasn't on the line anyway. I am sure the officials decided it better to start on time rather than make the other 39 guys sit there in the rain....

Wait, I can't win.

DC
MX Sports"

S

Post a reply to: no penelty for dungey?

The Latest