What if: RV docked 3 places with no red flag

Bob693 wrote:

The Red Cross flag signifies there are medical personnel on the track, not how bad someone crashed.

dkg wrote:

My bigger concern is that those making the decisions don't do so consistently or in this race even seem to have a basic understanding of the...

My bigger concern is that those making the decisions don't do so consistently or in this race even seem to have a basic understanding of the rule book. For example (taken from the rule book appendix A paragraph A1.d):

d. The Race Director may pronounce the following penalties.
• Warning
• Fine
• Lap deductions or finishing position deductions
• Time and/or point penalties
• Disqualification
• Suspension
• Probation not exceeding 12 months from the date of offence

The initial penalty of docking three spots in the restart is not a penalty which the Race Director is allowed to impose under the rule book. Any argument that doing so consitutes a "time" penalty does not work as the word time means just that, not restart location. Further, all of the above penalties seem to be ones that are imposed after the conclusion of the race. Proper handling of the initial penalty would have been to allow the race to restart in original running order and then impose the penalty. The Race Director is not given (under the rules) discretion to impose penalties other than those specifically stated.

Going on to the second arguable Red Cross flag violation, a strained review of the tapes could remotely conclude that no violation occurred. Is this really the proper message to send to the Riders regarding the respect to be given to a Red Cross flag? The flag was clearly dislayed. The offending Rider had a previous violation IN THE SAME race. Yet it is construed to be no penalty. Since the purpose of the red cross flag is safety to the riders and medical crew (something that would seem to be of paramount importance) perhaps strict interpretation should have been used.

The solution to these issues would probably be to add another subpart to paragraph d, such as:

• Or any other wild idea the Race Director comes up with at the time

GuyB, this post isn't directed at any comment you made even though I quoted your posting, the quotation just semed a good place to start.

As for the handling of these incidents, I'd award an EPIC FAIL.

RaceFace wrote:

Well, didn't think you'd have an intelligent comment. A rulebook for little league can't be ambiguous. If it is, it is a suggestion book. That's what...

Well, didn't think you'd have an intelligent comment. A rulebook for little league can't be ambiguous. If it is, it is a suggestion book. That's what SX has, an official suggestion book. All of the suggestions within are malleable and up for interpretation for all, as long as it is what the race official says. Any rulebook that gives the race official full autonomy in handling situations and doling out penalties......including making up the penalties on the spot ceases to be a rulebook. He could have literally decided any one of maybe 10 different options in docking RV for the first instance, including a time penalty, a lap penalty, position penalty, on the restart or at the finish. The penalty for his offense should be known and in black and white in the rulebook. Literally, the same thing could happen to Stewart next week and they could dock him 10 seconds at the finish, instead of 3 positions on a restart. That seems sensible?

flarider wrote:

Which is why people bitch and moan over a simple law being passed in Congress has four billion word on four thousand pages, because someone somewhere...

Which is why people bitch and moan over a simple law being passed in Congress has four billion word on four thousand pages, because someone somewhere will want to parse words or split hairs and call it "ambiguous" rather than simply accepting the rule or law on face value.

RaceFace wrote:

Well, didn't think you'd have an intelligent comment. A rulebook for little league can't be ambiguous. If it is, it is a suggestion book. That's what...

Well, didn't think you'd have an intelligent comment. A rulebook for little league can't be ambiguous. If it is, it is a suggestion book. That's what SX has, an official suggestion book. All of the suggestions within are malleable and up for interpretation for all, as long as it is what the race official says. Any rulebook that gives the race official full autonomy in handling situations and doling out penalties......including making up the penalties on the spot ceases to be a rulebook. He could have literally decided any one of maybe 10 different options in docking RV for the first instance, including a time penalty, a lap penalty, position penalty, on the restart or at the finish. The penalty for his offense should be known and in black and white in the rulebook. Literally, the same thing could happen to Stewart next week and they could dock him 10 seconds at the finish, instead of 3 positions on a restart. That seems sensible?

flarider wrote:

Which is why people bitch and moan over a simple law being passed in Congress has four billion word on four thousand pages, because someone somewhere...

Which is why people bitch and moan over a simple law being passed in Congress has four billion word on four thousand pages, because someone somewhere will want to parse words or split hairs and call it "ambiguous" rather than simply accepting the rule or law on face value.

RaceFace wrote:

So you like it like this? Cool! Good point on congress by the way? congress? It is damn simple to put in writing what the penalty...

So you like it like this? Cool! Good point on congress by the way? congress? It is damn simple to put in writing what the penalty will be for jumping/passing under Red Cross flags and when the Red Cross zone begins and ends. It can be argued Stewart should not have passed into the section based on what the rules outline, which is nothing. How the hell would ANYONE be against making the goddamn rulebook be clear in all respects? Get rid of the rulebook entirely then and just let the race officials do whatever suits their fancy that day. The officials job is to enforce the rules, not make them up as they go.

Choppy wrote:

The rule book says you can't pass until after the "point of concern" when dealing with that flag. 2 times in one race. Same crap last...

The rule book says you can't pass until after the "point of concern" when dealing with that flag.
2 times in one race.

Same crap last year. It's sad, but why follow any of the rules. Just play dumb when you break one.

TbonesPop wrote:

If the rider is back up and mounted on his bike trying to start it, how is that a "point of concern" and even remotely worthy...

If the rider is back up and mounted on his bike trying to start it, how is that a "point of concern" and even remotely worthy of a red cross flag? The RV pass(s) on JS is irrelevant to me. He would have passed him anyway as he already did twice before that. JS had plenty of time to get RV back too, but RV gapped him. The biggest issue is the way the first issue before the restart was handled - that's where the controversy should be focused. Milsaps got boned out of some serious points in the series.

flarider wrote:

YOU are the one parsing words and splitting hairs rather accepting that it is clear something was amiss in regards to last night's race and rules...

YOU are the one parsing words and splitting hairs rather accepting that it is clear something was amiss in regards to last night's race and rules enforcement.

TbonesPop wrote:

If the rider is back up and mounted on his bike trying to start it, how is that a "point of concern" and even remotely worthy...

If the rider is back up and mounted on his bike trying to start it, how is that a "point of concern" and even remotely worthy of a red cross flag? The RV pass(s) on JS is irrelevant to me. He would have passed him anyway as he already did twice before that. JS had plenty of time to get RV back too, but RV gapped him. The biggest issue is the way the first issue before the restart was handled - that's where the controversy should be focused. Milsaps got boned out of some serious points in the series.

flarider wrote:

That isn't the rider's decision to make. The rider is to follow the flags, not make their own arbitrary decision.

TbonesPop wrote:

If the rider is back up and mounted on his bike trying to start it, how is that a "point of concern" and even remotely worthy...

If the rider is back up and mounted on his bike trying to start it, how is that a "point of concern" and even remotely worthy of a red cross flag? The RV pass(s) on JS is irrelevant to me. He would have passed him anyway as he already did twice before that. JS had plenty of time to get RV back too, but RV gapped him. The biggest issue is the way the first issue before the restart was handled - that's where the controversy should be focused. Milsaps got boned out of some serious points in the series.

flarider wrote:

That isn't the rider's decision to make. The rider is to follow the flags, not make their own arbitrary decision.

davis224 wrote:

His pass on Stewart was a little on the shady side, but there were yellow flags flying before he passed him, so can't really do anything...

His pass on Stewart was a little on the shady side, but there were yellow flags flying before he passed him, so can't really do anything about that, Stewart was just being cautious with all the flags. However, his "penalty" for jumping on a red cross is complete bullshit. He should have been docked 3 spots off of his finishing position, not 3 bike lengths on the restart. That was a slap on the wrist with a wink and a nudge afterwards.

davis224 wrote:

His pass on Stewart was a little on the shady side, but there were yellow flags flying before he passed him, so can't really do anything...

His pass on Stewart was a little on the shady side, but there were yellow flags flying before he passed him, so can't really do anything about that, Stewart was just being cautious with all the flags. However, his "penalty" for jumping on a red cross is complete bullshit. He should have been docked 3 spots off of his finishing position, not 3 bike lengths on the restart. That was a slap on the wrist with a wink and a nudge afterwards.

Choppy wrote:

I think RV needs to have a red light installed on his front fender so they can turn it on when flashing lights and cross flags...

I think RV needs to have a red light installed on his front fender so they can turn it on when flashing lights and cross flags come out because he never can seem to see them, and always simply says," Sorry guys I didn't see them because I stare at my front finder." or at least that was the reason last year.

Choppy wrote:

I think RV needs to have a red light installed on his front fender so they can turn it on when flashing lights and cross flags...

I think RV needs to have a red light installed on his front fender so they can turn it on when flashing lights and cross flags come out because he never can seem to see them, and always simply says," Sorry guys I didn't see them because I stare at my front finder." or at least that was the reason last year.

TbonesPop wrote:

Apparently James "didn't see" the flashing red lights going off in the corner before the triple where he passed RV either - clearly a violation. Maybe...

Apparently James "didn't see" the flashing red lights going off in the corner before the triple where he passed RV either - clearly a violation. Maybe they should put remote control kill switches on the bikes of all the riders to make them play fairly in the sandbox.

vanillaice782 wrote:

If the flaggers weren't volunteers their actions would be taken more seriously. There didn't need to be a red cross flag in that situation.

vanillaice782 wrote:

If the flaggers weren't volunteers their actions would be taken more seriously. There didn't need to be a red cross flag in that situation.

yam261 wrote:

Bingo. There was no reason for that guy to be waving the red cross flag. If Stewart or anyone else is upset they should take it...

Bingo. There was no reason for that guy to be waving the red cross flag. If Stewart or anyone else is upset they should take it up with the flagger.

Choppy wrote:

THe flashing lights are to warn not to jump, you can pass up until you cross the lights.

Choppy wrote:

THe flashing lights are to warn not to jump, you can pass up until you cross the lights.

TbonesPop wrote:

"you can pass up until you cross the lights". I kindly invite you to go watch the video again. JS passed RV [u]after[/u] he passed the...

"you can pass up until you cross the lights".

I kindly invite you to go watch the video again. JS passed RV after he passed the flashing red lights. The red lights were in the corner BEFORE he passed RV on the left hand side of the track. They didn't have the lights (that I could see) at the top of the triple like in other races because there wasn't enough time coming out of the corner to see the lights and get on the brakes to safely not jump the triple. So the red lights were in the corner before the whole section and JS passed RV after he had gone past the flashing red lights.

Choppy wrote:

THe flashing lights are to warn not to jump, you can pass up until you cross the lights.

TbonesPop wrote:

"you can pass up until you cross the lights". I kindly invite you to go watch the video again. JS passed RV [u]after[/u] he passed the...

"you can pass up until you cross the lights".

I kindly invite you to go watch the video again. JS passed RV after he passed the flashing red lights. The red lights were in the corner BEFORE he passed RV on the left hand side of the track. They didn't have the lights (that I could see) at the top of the triple like in other races because there wasn't enough time coming out of the corner to see the lights and get on the brakes to safely not jump the triple. So the red lights were in the corner before the whole section and JS passed RV after he had gone past the flashing red lights.

Choppy wrote:

Then both riders need to be docked. JS7 can get a warning because RV2 got 2 warnings (I believe) the prior season or you can give...

Then both riders need to be docked. JS7 can get a warning because RV2 got 2 warnings (I believe) the prior season or you can give him a 3 spot penalty like RV2 "got"

Either way the AMA looks cowardly, and as a rider why would you listen to them in the future?
For me this is not an RV vs JS7 deal, it's an inadequate AMA deal.

Choppy wrote:

Then both riders need to be docked. JS7 can get a warning because RV2 got 2 warnings (I believe) the prior season or you can give...

Then both riders need to be docked. JS7 can get a warning because RV2 got 2 warnings (I believe) the prior season or you can give him a 3 spot penalty like RV2 "got"

Either way the AMA looks cowardly, and as a rider why would you listen to them in the future?
For me this is not an RV vs JS7 deal, it's an inadequate AMA deal.

Hut wrote:

Seriously if we have to warn you one more time, we will warn you again and that's final.