Shameful conduct by SCCA officials at Road Atlanta

[Daryl DeArman]

The E&O change is a clear statement/indication that the appeal that was filed was valid according to the GCR.

The only thing the E&O change indicates is that the SCCA felt like the rule was not "adequate as written" and needed fixing so somebody else didn't misinterpret their intent.

Did they clean up the **** sandwich that is the section about tolerances and digits, or they going to cross that bridge when someone gets there too?

[Ed Womer]

I had asked earlier how was the measurement taken and enforced or interrupted? Alan who must have been there and Greg Bruns who said he was in impound had to have been there so does anyone know exactly how this came about?

John also mentioned that safety issues usually don't result in a disqualification but a note to correct it before the next race. I spoke to Butch Deere at a Race at Road America and he said he was going to be head of tech for the FV class and I asked him to clarify this issue.

Greg Rice mentioned about the issue with body manufacture and exhaust manufacture are competing against each other for performance issues might have some validity but almost all vee's have two of the exhaust pipes partially outside the bodywork at some point in their routing. So I don't think this is that an import issue.

Just remember that SCCA thought enough of Laura to feature her on the cover of the monthly magazine to promote young woman coming into road racing and if what I heard is true is that she decided to get out of racing due this issue. What a shame!

Like I said exhaust will terminate outside of the bodywork is all that needs to be said since other measurements control the overall length of the car.

Ed

[Daryl DeArman]

Like I said exhaust will terminate outside of the bodywork is all that needs to be said since other measurements control the overall length of the car.

Respectfully, no thanks. That's a rule change, not a clarification or an E&O edit. I don't think the class needs another rule change just because they can't seem to draft a rule that aligns with their intent.

Something like this Kindergartener's drawing would satisfy the rule you are proposing:

[Jnovak]

The simple solution to all of the Bs about this rule is to add a very simple sentence to the existing rule.

Something that states that there is no plus or minus tolerance to this specific defined dimension. If you cannot achieve this you should do something else with your time and money!

[E1pix]

I am all about rules adherence regardless of the type of racing in question. In fact, I despise cheaters, and find them pathetic.

But it seems this case is about neither a performance advantage nor a safety violation of any real concern -- but rather an honest oversight. It happens, we are all flawed, and the solution could have been a logbook notation to be enforced at the next race.

SCCA seems to have lost all sight of long-term Club viability, which is the direct result of racers getting what they're paying for.

In this case, someone earned a victory just to be humiliated. If she moved on to another Club, or another avocation, I wouldn't blame her one bit.

This strikes me as yet another case of Weekend Warrior ego run amuck. This ain't pro racing, but is done at great expense to simply have fun.

[Daryl DeArman]

I am all about rules adherence regardless of the type of racing in question. In fact, I despise cheaters, and find them pathetic.

But it seems this case is about neither a performance advantage nor a safety violation of any real concern -- but rather an honest oversight. It happens, we are all flawed, and the solution could have been a logbook notation to be enforced at the next race.

So who gets to decide what rules violations are an honest oversight, which rule violations are performance advantages and which are safety violations, which are a combination of both?

[John Nesbitt]

The simple solution to all of the Bs about this rule is to add a very simple sentence to the existing rule.

Something that states that there is no plus or minus tolerance to this specific defined dimension. If you cannot achieve this you should do something else with your time and money!

That is exactly what the forthcoming TB does.

[Hardingfv32]

... It happens, we are all flawed, and the solution could have been a logbook notation to be enforced at the next race.

This was an item selected for mandatory post race Major event inspection. It was not something that could be rectified with a warning. Post race inspections have to be black and white. Tech cannot be perceived as choosing the winner.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

The simple solution to all of the Bs ...

Why in the world call this BS?

This tailpipe rule is a very common post race inspection item. The only reason that it made headlines this time is that the measurement was appealed. I doubt any competitor or tech personnel had ever considered what tolerance applied before this time. The CRB pickup on the subject, saw the mistake being made appling the tolerance by the Appeal Brd and issued an E&O.

A lot of hyperbulia being applied to this tailpipe measurement discussion. You can make this out as a very simple measurement, but it still has to be done correctly.

Brian

[Jnovak]

Why in the world call this BS?

This tailpipe rule is a very common post race inspection item. The only reason that it made headlines this time is that the measurement was appealed. I doubt any competitor or tech personnel had ever considered what tolerance applied before this time. The CRB pickup on the subject, saw the mistake being made appling the tolerance by the Appeal Brd and issued an E&O.

A lot of hyperbulia being applied to this tailpipe measurement discussion. You can make this out as a very simple measurement, but it still has to be done correctly.

Brian

The BS I was referring to was all the arguing on the internet. If you do not know the rule or misunderstood it or never checked your car properly and are not legal you are out! Simple isn't it?

I am all for following the rules, as WRITTEN!. Our cars have been protested many many times and we have been legal every single time! Why? Simply because I read the rules very carefully many many many times!

[Daryl DeArman]

I am all for following the rules, as WRITTEN!. Our cars have been protested many many times and we have been legal every single time! Why? Simply because I read the rules very carefully many many many times!

Jay, how do you interpret this rule as WRITTEN (not what you think they meant )?

This is the rule: For these specifications, the tolerance shall be equivalent to 1/2 of the final digit of the specification (e.g. .01”tolerance equals +/- .005”)

Assume these values are given: 40"
42"
43.05"

What are the allowable tolerances for those 3 measurements, assuming that those values belong to some spec where the GCR states measurement tolerances apply?

[John Nesbitt]

The purpose of this tailpipe rule is (pick one):

1. Safety
2. Performance
3. Unintended evolution of original rule
4. Original rule writers wanted to specify every last item, regardless of safety or performance
5. Incidental cruft that crept into the ruleset
6. Unknown


For extra credit, trawl through every iteration of the FV ruleset, and trace the origin/evolution of this rule.

[GrahamLoughead35]

The purpose of this tailpipe rule is (pick one):

1. Safety
2. Performance
3. Unintended evolution of original rule
4. Original rule writers wanted to specify every last item, regardless of safety or performance
5. Incidental cruft that crept into the ruleset
6. Unknown

Safety and Performance

[problemchild]

OMG!

I go away for a few days and this BS is still going on.

The rule was written 57 years ago for safety and performance reasons within a ruleset that set parameters for the design of cars in the class. It does not need a tolerance, but some SCCA people rolled their eyes, and gave us one anyway.. Don't be lazy. Respect the rule. Accept responsibility for being lazy, disrespectful, or ignorant ..... and move on.

This whole thread, and the other similar thread, are a disservice to the FV community.

[Daryl DeArman]

OMG!

I go away for a few days and this BS is still going on.

Well, by all means keep the thread going Greg.

The debates about the tolerances and whether or not they should apply is because of the jackass way the section on tolerances is written. Might as well clean that up while it reared it's ugly head.

It does not need a tolerance, but some SCCA people rolled their eyes, and gave us one anyway.. Don't be lazy. Respect the rule. Accept responsibility for being lazy, disrespectful, or ignorant ..... and move on.

You may believe it doesn't need a range (which is what they gave us, not a measurement tolerance) but without a range, nobody would be able to hit the same dimension two track sessions in a row, nor would any scrutineer be able to measure the dimension twice in a row exactly the same. It's not about being lazy or disrespectful, it's about being reasonable. Clearly a range of 1-3" is very reasonable and easy to hit, provided you don't wish to get creative (not strained and tortured) with your interpretation of the word "terminates" as it relates to exhaust system in a FV.

[E1pix]

This was an item selected for mandatory post race Major event inspection. It was not something that could be rectified with a warning. Post race inspections have to be black and white. Tech cannot be perceived as choosing the winner.

Brian

Fair enough, I can appreciate that.

[Steve Davis]

Just to throw one last item into this discussion, there IS another rule in the GCR that played a part in this incident. I was told (well after the event) when I inquired about the severity of the penalty, that the GCR explicitly states (somewhere) that a NON-COMPLIANT car shall not be classified as finishing in front of a compliant car in the official results. Thus, Laura was moved behind all compliant cars (or at least those that were not determined to be NON compliant).

I agree that it would have been more appropriate to either SPEAK with the driver and tell them not to show up again until it was corrected .. or possibly even note in the log book.. however, noting it in the log book, would actually be an admission that a non-compliant car WAS allowed to finish in front of other compliant cars. It might also have been that several other people besides the driver got involved in the discussion in impound. Once that happened, officials might have found themselves in a position that required them to 'take a stand' and follow the GCR to the letter. It was no longer possible to just quietly TELL the driver to just FIX IT.

The tech officials were given a directive from the Chief Steward to check the exhaust pipe legality on all FV in impound. Seemingly a simple process. Once found, tech reported it to the CS.. they do NOT 'take action' beyond that. The rest of the process is SOM and Appeals court stewards.

Steve, FV80

[Jnovak]

The reality is that no one on that team reads the rules!

[R. Pare]

My reading of the GCR makes me believe that the CS had the option to either give a warning, give no penalty at all, or go whole hog on a penalty:

From the GCR: ( My emphasis on their options in red)

8.1.2. Request for Action
The Race Director or Chief Steward may submit to the SOM a Request for Action (RFA) describing a suspected
breach of the GCR or the Supplemental Regulations, asking the SOM to investigate and determine whether
there was a breach, and what, if any, penalties to impose. The Race Director or Chief Steward cannot submit
an RFA for any single violation of the rules for which he has already imposed a penalty allowed in 5.12.3. An
RFA resulting from a post-race impound inspection may be submitted within a reasonable time following the
discovery of the suspected breach. All other RFAs must be submitted to the SOM within 30 minutes after
the results of the final race of the event are posted, although the SOM may approve an extension of time.

8.1.3. Chief Steward’s Action Against a Car
The Race Director or Chief Steward may initiate an action against a car for non-compliance using a CSA or
RFA. The procedures are the same as when one competitor protests the compliance of another’s car (see
8.3.3.), except that the organizer replaces the protestor regarding expenses and the Chief Steward replaces
the Chairman.

In other words, there was nothing mandatory about her receiving the penalty that they imposed on her.

[Daryl DeArman]

My reading of the GCR makes me believe that the CS had the option to either give a warning, give no penalty at all, or go whole hog on a penalty:

From the GCR: ( My emphasis on their options in red)

8.1.2. Request for Action
The Race Director or Chief Steward may submit to the SOM a Request for Action (RFA) describing a suspected
breach of the GCR or the Supplemental Regulations, asking the SOM to investigate and determine whether
there was a breach, and what, if any, penalties to impose. The Race Director or Chief Steward cannot submit
an RFA for any single violation of the rules for which he has already imposed a penalty allowed in 5.12.3. An
RFA resulting from a post-race impound inspection may be submitted within a reasonable time following the
discovery of the suspected breach. All other RFAs must be submitted to the SOM within 30 minutes after
the results of the final race of the event are posted, although the SOM may approve an extension of time.

8.1.3. Chief Steward’s Action Against a Car
The Race Director or Chief Steward may initiate an action against a car for non-compliance using a CSA or
RFA. The procedures are the same as when one competitor protests the compliance of another’s car (see
8.3.3.), except that the organizer replaces the protestor regarding expenses and the Chief Steward replaces
the Chairman.

In other words, there was nothing mandatory about her receiving the penalty that they imposed on her.

Interesting take, and a reasonable person could read it that way.

However, another reasonable person could read "may" to mean "being permitted/allowed", not to mean "optional or discretional".

The use of "if any" is there because if no breach was found, no penalties would apply. Conditional, not discretionary.

We can not/should not allow the circumstances where a car found to be non-compliant for any reason is permitted to have a finishing position ahead of any car that was not found to be non-compliant. There should be no "get it fixed for next time" on violations found AFTER the completion of a given competition. Easy, simple, non-politcal, non-discretionary.

[R. Pare]

You need to read the GCR concerning the words "may" and "must" -

1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR
A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying
the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically
cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall
not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are
mandatory; and words such as “may” and “should” are permissive.

[Stumpthumper]

Ok, we've reached the end. Good thread everyone. Time to pack it all up.

[John Nesbitt]

Interesting take, and a reasonable person could read it that way.

However, another reasonable person could read "may" to mean "being permitted/allowed", not to mean "optional or discretional".

The use of "if any" is there because if no breach was found, no penalties would apply. Conditional, not discretionary.

We can not/should not allow the circumstances where a car found to be non-compliant for any reason is permitted to have a finishing position ahead of any car that was not found to be non-compliant. There should be no "get it fixed for next time" on violations found AFTER the completion of a given competition. Easy, simple, non-politcal, non-discretionary.

In the GCR, "may" means "may", and "shall" means "shall". See section 1.2.3.A, relevant passage highlighted.

1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR

A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying the GCR shall be logical, remembering

that the GCR cannot specifically cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall

not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are mandatory; and words such as

“may” and “should” are permissive.

Stewards work with a set of penalty guidelines. They are available for all to read in the File Cabinet on scca.com, under Road Racing Stewards Material.

The guidelines set out a set of recommended penalties for common infractions, including compliance. Note that they are guidelines, not rules. Stewards may increase or decrease the penalty according to circumstances. I have done as little as a logbook entry for a compliance issue, again according to circumstances.

That said, the guideline penalty is the normal expected action. A few years ago, we tracked all penalties during a season. 80% followed the guidelines; lesser/greater penalties accounted for about 10% each.

At a Majors/Super Tour, I would expect a non-compliance to attract a move-behind-compliant cars.

This, of course, is entirely separate from the question of whether the rule under discussion was properly stated.

[Daryl DeArman]

My reading of the GCR makes me believe that the CS had the option to either give a warning, give no penalty at all, or go whole hog on a penalty:

From the GCR: ( My emphasis on their options in red)

8.1.2. Request for Action
The Race Director or Chief Steward may submit to the SOM a Request for Action (RFA) describing a suspected
breach of the GCR or the Supplemental Regulations, asking the SOM to investigate and determine whether
there was a breach, and what, if any, penalties to impose. The Race Director or Chief Steward cannot submit
an RFA for any single violation of the rules for which he has already imposed a penalty allowed in 5.12.3. An
RFA resulting from a post-race impound inspection may be submitted within a reasonable time following the
discovery of the suspected breach. All other RFAs must be submitted to the SOM within 30 minutes after
the results of the final race of the event are posted, although the SOM may approve an extension of time.

8.1.3. Chief Steward’s Action Against a Car
The Race Director or Chief Steward may initiate an action against a car for non-compliance using a CSA or
RFA. The procedures are the same as when one competitor protests the compliance of another’s car (see
8.3.3.), except that the organizer replaces the protestor regarding expenses and the Chief Steward replaces
the Chairman.

In other words, there was nothing mandatory about her receiving the penalty that they imposed on her.

Interesting take, and a reasonable person could read it that way.

However, another reasonable person could read "may" to mean "being permitted/allowed", not to mean "optional or discretional".

You need to read the GCR concerning the words "may" and "must" -

1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR
A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying
the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically
cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall
not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are
mandatory; and words such as “may” and “should” are permissive.

Exactly. MAY is granting permission to do something which is what I stated.

You suggested that the use of may was giving them discretion/option to do it or not do it.

[John Nesbitt]

Exactly. MAY is granting permission to do something. Not giving the person the option/discretion to do it or not, as you stated in your first quote.

[

I think that this qualifies as a "strained or tortured" interpretation.

[Daryl DeArman]

Exactly. MAY is granting permission to do something which is what I stated.

You suggested that the use of may was giving them discretion/option to do it or not do it.

I think that this qualifies as a "strained or tortured" interpretation.

Ha ha. Really? The GCR states very few things as clearly, words such as "may" and "should" are permissive. How is me stating the same "strained or tortured"?

[Peter Olivola]

Exactly. MAY is granting permission to do something which is what I stated.

You suggested that the use of may was giving them discretion/option to do it or not do it.

How do you see these two "definitions" differing?

[R. Pare]

"May" allows the stewards (or tech) the option of filing a RFA or to not file an RFA - that is how the "permissive" definition works.

There is no way that "May" can mean anything else.

[Daryl DeArman]

How do you see these two "definitions" differing?

Context.

I can grant permission without also giving discretion. There's a reason so many contracts contain discretionary clauses. They want to grant permission without obligation.

The SCCA couldn't use the word SHALL because the condition that would require the RFA may not materialize.

[John Nesbitt]

Context.

I can grant permission without also giving discretion. There's a reason so many contracts contain discretionary clauses. They want to grant permission without obligation.

The SCCA couldn't use the word SHALL because the condition that would require the RFA may not materialize.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”


This has all been an elaborate prank, right? It's OK to tell us now - you really had us going there.



On the off-chance that you were not kidding, I commend GCR 1.2.3.A to your attention: " ... words such as "may" and "should" are permissive." If I "may" do something, I am allowed to do it; I am equally allowed not to do it. I have discretion. If I "shall" do something, I have no discretion; I must do it.

Read 5.12.3.C Powers of the Chief Steward - his powers are all "may".

[Daryl DeArman]

This has all been an elaborate prank, right? It's OK to tell us now - you really had us going there.

If I "may" do something, I am allowed to do it

Agreed.

I am equally allowed not to do it. I have discretion.

Disagree...maybe a Venn diagram is in order. Just because you are permitted to do something doesn't mean that you have the discretion whether to do it or not.

CONTEXT is key.


http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1229

[John Nesbitt]

... Just because you are permitted to do something doesn't mean that you have the discretion whether to do it or not.

You can easily put your proposition to the test.

Sometime when you are a participant at an event and the Chief Steward fails to take a "may" action (e.g. does not penalize someone for a PUY or being underweight), file a protest against that inaction. The SOM will disallow it. Appeal their decision. The COA will uphold the SOM. As surely as the sun will rise tomorrow.

[Peter Olivola]

Context.

I can grant permission without also giving discretion. There's a reason so many contracts contain discretionary clauses. They want to grant permission without obligation.

The SCCA couldn't use the word SHALL because the condition that would require the RFA may not materialize.

As a club, the SCCA gets to define what its words mean. John has provided that.

[Jnovak]

A long time ago we were less than 1 pound under min weight. Tech was actually very supportive of our problem. After much humming aNd hawing the chief of tech asked me a question. It was a very simple question! It was " do you have any questions? ". I said yes I do. He said to go ahead so I did. We were out of tech in about 30 secoonds.

A beer to whoever gets it first!

[Matt Clark]

A long time ago we were less than 1 pound under min weight. Tech was actually very supportive of our problem. After much humming aNd hawing the chief of tech asked me a question. It was a very simple question! It was " do you have any questions? ". I said yes I do. He said to go ahead so I did. We were out of tech in about 30 secoonds.

A beer to whoever gets it first!

"where is the calibration cert?"

[John Nesbitt]

A long time ago we were less than 1 pound under min weight. Tech was actually very supportive of our problem. After much humming aNd hawing the chief of tech asked me a question. It was a very simple question! It was " do you have any questions? ". I said yes I do. He said to go ahead so I did. We were out of tech in about 30 secoonds.

A beer to whoever gets it first!

"What's your favorite beer?"

[Daryl DeArman]

As a club, the SCCA gets to define what its words mean. John has provided that.

Agreed. That's not what's debatable. The SCCA gets to decide what may means, and they decided it means permissive. Permissive can mean allowed. It can also mean allowed, but not obligatory, as in discretionary.

[Jnovak]

"where is the calibration cert?"

Very close so I am good for the beer Matt!

Anyone else?

[Daryl DeArman]

A long time ago we were less than 1 pound under min weight. Tech was actually very supportive of our problem. After much humming aNd hawing the chief of tech asked me a question. It was a very simple question! It was " do you have any questions? ". I said yes I do. He said to go ahead so I did. We were out of tech in about 30 secoonds.

A beer to whoever gets it first!

My guess is you said "Would you use your discretion?" He thought he had some, so he did

[Matt Clark]

Very close so I am good for the beer Matt!

Anyone else?

ha.... I went for the angle I hear people fighting radar gun speeding tickets with. surprising how often I hear it working in PA.