June Sprints

[David Ferguson]

June Sprints Entry lists are now posted:

http://www.scca.com/Event/Event.asp?Ref=04-junesprints

[ToddTW]

I will be at the Sprints Saturday and Sunday and I will try to get some results and reports posted as soon as I get home each night. Looking at the schedule, I should be home by 6PM CDT each evening.

If anyone needs specific times/info on anyone, just let me know.

[ToddTW]

Official Grid

1. Pritchard 2:21.6
2. Rarrick 2:22.6
3. LaRue 2:23.2
4. Sauce 2:24.9


Unofficial Race Results

1. Pritchard
2. Sauce

Pritchard, Rarrick and LaRue were nose to tail for the first 6 laps. LaRue's race ended in the gravel in 14. Pritchard and Rarrick then swapped back and forth until the last lap. Rarrick was ahead in 5, but as they appeared out of 13, Rarrick was missing. He came back on the back of a flatbed, rear suspension bent and driver still in the car........

[Garey Guzman]

Any more news about Scott Rarick?

[akilcoyne]

Pritchard was DQ'd for what the stewards called baulking the start. It was a split start from the mazda's, suprisingly however the two groups didn't have a great deal of seperation on the pace lap. The pace Justin set was a little slow out of 14 and up the hill, but the group was lined up nicely and from a spectators standpoint it appeared to be a nice clean start. (from what I was told, nothing as slow as Nunes a couple years ago) I think the slower pace probably created a much better race, as the FF's didn't catch the back marker mazda's until after they had some seperation. Pritchard and LaRue had a good battle early on, as they were dicing it allowed Rarrick to close in and join for a three way battle. Unfortunately Mr. LaRue ended up in the gravel in 14 about half way through the race. Pritchard and Rarick had a great battle for the rest of the race, swapping postions multiple times a lap. Justin drafted Scott going into 12 on the last lap and pulled out for the pass. They went two wide into 12, justin on the inside and scott on the outside. Scott said he got into the marbles which caused him to go off course. After a series of protests and events, the Piper was thrown out for the start, Sauce who was awarded the win, had the win taken away and given to Rarick. Pritchard and Rarrick were the only two cars who hadn't been lapped by the Mazda's, making Justin and Scott one lap ahead of Mike at timing and scoring.
It's too bad for Don, Gib, and Justin who ripped off a blistering 2.21.6 in qualifying, we'll below his own track record.
Kudos to Scott Rarick, first time ever at Road America going sub-track record speed in qualifying and getting the win in the DB6!

What a race!!

[David Ferguson]

Can someone please explain what a "baulked start" is?

I've looked through the GCR (section 7.5 & 7.6), and it just says the second group should be led by a pace car that "should" keep the first group in site on the longest straight.

It sounds to me like Justin did a good job with 7.5.12, slowing the speed immediately prior to the start to allow the orderly grouping of the field.

[imported_FF3]

The Chicago Region and the Central Division have a history of having extraordinarily inept administrators and stewards (as a quick disclaimer, there are a few exceptions however, and damn few unfortunately) who having never driven a race car (or if they had driven, had driven poorly a long time ago), feel it incumbent upon them to take the race away from the drivers, and typically ignore drivers advice and wishes. In the real world such ineptness would not be tolerated. Here it seems to be rewarded. I was the victim of such artless incompetency a year ago, and yes my feelings still show. I find it grating that those who have never been in our coliseum tasting the sweat and the blood, deign to levy such control.

Regardless, hats off to Justin, Don, Gibby, et al. And it is well worth noting that the competitors did not file a protest.

Once again, I do not have an unspoken thought.

Franz

[size="1"][ June 20, 2004, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: FF3 ][/size]

[Garey Guzman]

Thanks for the reports!
Being a left coast person, I was rooting for Scott. I hope we get the final results posted here. Very interesting stuff!

[imported_FF3]

A significant typo in my post above. I meant to say the competitors did NOT file a protest. It is worth pointing out that this typo was in my rant regarding incompetency. Go figure, huh?!

Franz

Typo now corrected.

[size="1"][ June 20, 2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: FF3 ][/size]

[ToddTW]

DISQ Pritchard 13
2. Rarick 12 NR
3. Sauce 12
4. Kolthoff 12
5. Copple 12
6. Roberts 12
7. Valine 12
8. Tieman 12
9. Lenhart 12
10. Luxon 11

Car 88 Pritchard Disqualified per Chief Steward- On Track Incident, all cars moved up

[Joe Bass]

Is that from the final results? If it is,what happened to Slade Miller?...listed ahead of Kolthoff in the provisionals

[ToddTW]

My mistake. Slade Miller did indeed finish 3rd officially after Pritchard's disqualification.

[Neil Porter]

It's nice to know that the stewarts may be incompetent but they are not dumb. They are capable of learning. When Keith Nunes was black flagged while leading the race a few years ago (a decision that was overturned by the way), the stewarts also admitted that they screwed up by not waiting until after the race to disquailify him so he could complete the race and have a chance to appeal any decision. They have now learned to wait until after the race to make their stupid decisions. So do not be disheartened. In 10 to 20 years these guys will either learn, retire, or die. And there is the chance that the new officials will not be as brain dead as the current crop. Of course there is the possibility that the new officials will be related to the current ones or possibly trained by them so don't get your hopes up too high. Neil

[TomChrist]

Fat guys on golf carts with big egos, biggest entry fee of the season, renting a parking space, and very poor decisions by the officials...and you wonder why Mark and his friends go to Beaver Run?

[M.L.Sauce]

I was in the race and saw the start.I was even close enough(right behind Rarick) to see a problem had there been one.Justin did not over slow the field.Rarick did not move along side Justin until very late right before the green flag.If there was a problem it was with Rarick not Justin.I was amazed at the results.I will wonder about this one for some time.I probably should not be voicing my opinion but I felt the need to tell the story as I saw it.Sorry Justin,Don and Gibby, from my vantage point,it was unjust and you should have protested it.You guys did a great job and you deserved to win.

[John Robinson]

I heard through the grapevine that Justin was only penalized one lap. Did Don's actions in impound bring on the DQ? I also heard that he threw a large temper tantrum. Not that I blame him.

John

[Dave Hopple]

Not to take anything away from Scott Rarick, he was very fast and drove a great race but how can the Chicago Region Stewards (sticklers for protocol it appears) decide to throw out a 3 time national champion for going too slow on a start, then declare the winner of the race that did not go through post race impound?

-Dave

P.S. can somebody copy paste the GCR section that says anything about start speed....

[R. Pare]

Dave, we ARE talking Chicago Region people here!

[Dave Hopple]

Yeah I know Richard and I also realise that Scott crunched up his car in Canada corner and to take it up to impound would have sucked. But this is just unfair and a total abuse of power by the Stewards to do this to Justin IMHO.

Did the start speed cause a wreck or a dangerous situation? Ok I am done ranting (for now) -Dave

[Mike Kolthoff]

There was no problem with the start. We started off with too close of a gap... The last Mazda was just turning into 8 when my row (3) was exiting turn seven. This is a 4 mile track for crying out loud. Guys this is a great race that people are succeeding in making a joke. They (officals) penalize a pole setter out of a win yet don't have the time to watch the antics that go on during other sessions. I would like to know if they venture out on the track during the event, How much can you tell by watching the front straight? We were told that RA had closed circuit camera on every corner.. I would be interested to know if they were used used for this judgement. A example of antic to follow...
I.E. Mazda diving me at the kink, hitting brakes at the apex and then proceed to the pit in a practice session. Yeah, everyone makes mistakes but it seems that taking someone aside and just talking to them seems like to much trouble. "We" need to make a big deal out of everything. I say take care of the small stuff early and often and with no fanfare and things would get better. Stewarding should be a instrument of teaching as well as a courtroom. I say put the SOM"s out on course a little bit and see if things change. Again I will state when I asked how long and what could I do to be a steward....the answer I was given was it would take 10 years to be a Chief. Heck I can be a docter in 10 years. About 200 race starts and I need 10 years... Some will say I already have the jerk park down.
Their are plenty of good people..... bad decisions though.

[R. Pare]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, just what EXACTLY were the start instructions given in the Drivers Meeting? Also, same for the Supplementary Regs.

[imported_FF3]

I would like to carry on Mike Koltoff's theme a bit and point out the incompetency of the Stewards at the Sprints and elsewhere has been going on for quite awhile. With damn few exceptions, you cannot get them off of their chairs and out near the track. Last year at the Sprints in our race group (Sports Racers and FAs)we had several DSR and CSR drivers braking in the carousel ... not at the exit, not at the entrance, but in the carousel! Several of us decided to waste our time and ask at least two of the Stewards (if I could remember their names I would mention them, as I unfortiunately do not have an unspoken thought) if they could "observe" the drivers in question as they were dangerous and/or talk to them at least (Jim Kelley, my crew chief took matters into his own hands and "talked" to one of them on pit lane). We were told such would be too difficult, and besides the drivers had national licenses, and they were properly entered, and we should give them a little time as they were new to the track. That was and is insane. One of these new to the track drivers turned into me in our race, putting me head on into the wall with the impact at a data recorded speed of 97 mph. My injuries are such that I am likely going to be unable to race again. I spent all of last summer in a hospital bed, and you bet I am pissed at best. I am told that the Stewards in the tower did not even know of the injury even though the race was red flagged.

If I am able to return to racing, I fully expect it will not be with the SCCA, and certainly not in CenDiv in any event. All of us very much enjoy a very dangerous sport. One would think those that administer the sport would be interested in our safety. However it turns out that they are best at making poor judgement calls, costing Justin his win, and likely costing Nunes a win a couple of yeras ago. I am curious as to which of the many incompetent Stewards made the balking call, or possibly it took a committee of them.

Mike, I have about as many starts as you have, and I suggest that the entire CenDiv group of Stewards do not have such a total. The best Chief Steward I have seen is in the SWDiv, and I am embarrassed that I cannot think of his name. He is a former racer that typically ran at the front, I believe in FC and FVs. He alone puts our Stewards up here to shame. And while I am ranting (this is cheaper than therapy), Pete Olivola is one of the good guy Stewards, and Pete as I know you frequently contribute to these forums, why on earth does it take X years to become a Steward? I completed law and graduate business schools in 3 1/2 years, and there are damn few doctors, lawyers and MBAs amongst the stewards, so it can't be that hard.

Thanks for allowing my venting.

Franz

[David Ferguson]

The 10 years is because you have to wait for the old ones to die.

[Scotty Segers]

The stewart you are thinking in the Sowdiv is Jim Averitt, who has now become our Executive Stewart and you're right he is great.

Scotty Segers

[mark defer]

i don't remember the subject coming up in the FC/FA driver's meeting [that's not to say it didn't], but the supps did state that any jumping or balking of the start would be penalized. i just can't remember whether it said a stop and go or 1 lap penalty.
i'm assuming the reason they are so picky about changing the pace by balking is that they want to maintain the split start interval that the pace cars has set. several of us from the st clair group were sitting on the hill behind the tech building watching the FF/FM start. two observations were made as the start was happening. first of all, i stated that i thought the groups were too close for a split start on a 4 mile track. secondly, one of our group noted justin slowing the field and actually referred to how it was the same thing nunes did. the end result of justin's action was that the split start interval actually ended up better, as after the first lap the FMs were entering t5 as the as the FFs were entering t14.
unfortunately, as i said, it was stated in the supps that such a move would be penalized. we checked the gcr and there is no mention of balks or as far as we could tell, even maintaining the pace of the pace car. so it is definitely a per race rule. if you want to see someone slow the field after the pace car exits, you should experience the "weitzenhof crawl".

mark d

[size="1"][ June 23, 2004, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: mark defer ][/size]

[Dave Hopple]

Mark, it wasn't in the supps, it was in the "Message from the Chief Steward" -Dave

http://www.junesprints.com/chiefsteward_message.html

Jumped Starts
The penalty for jumping or balking the start will be a "stop and go" black flag penalty.

June Sprints Supplementary Regulations

[mark defer]

thanks for the correction dave. i knew it was in one of the sheets we got at registration, i assumed it was the supps.
i guess we were standing back to back at seibkens fri or sat night. i would have liked to meet you. maybe next time.

mark d

[M.L.Sauce]

The Chief Steward Terry Ozment told us the penalty for a starting infraction i.e. balking,jumping out of line etc. would be a stop and go not DSQ..I heard that when Justin was called to the tower and told about "balking the start" he was told then the penalty could be as much as being disqualified,which was wrong.The penalty could not have been disqualification because they were unsure whether he balked the start at all ,that is why they did not give him a stop and go penalty.Justin was DSQ for unsportsmanlike conduct for getting upset when he was at the tower.I don't know what happened,I was not there, but that is the story I heard.They ultimately figured out he did not balk the start but the damge was done at that point.It is unbelievable that this situation escalated to this.It could have been avoided.

[SStadel]

What Mr. Hopple brings up is pretty important. The stewards did not follow their own rule - that an infraction would result in a stop and go penalty. They waited until after the race and DQ'd Justin, which is not written anywhere. Conversely, Neil Porter brings up that not bringing Justin in, as they did with Keith, was actually a good thing. If Justin would win an appeal (don't even know if he filed one), he could get his win back. With a stop and go, no way was he going to catch Scott. Quite a Catch-22, wouldn't you say. My only other observation was from watching in five, I commented immediately to Dana "why is the Ford's pace car so close to the Mazda's?". Oh well, observation number 2 (no relation to the FF/FM). I was in the Atlantic field, which was the first group of a split start with the FC's. We had a ridiculously slow pace (from the pace car, not the polesitter). I've got my dash set to go into race mode at 50 mph and it didn't get into that mode until almost turn 5. I've had pace laps at Blackhawk where we hit that speed before turn 1!

(I didn't see your post Mike. I was typing mine at the time. Didn't know what he was DQ'd for. Thought it was the start thing.)

[R. Pare]

My suggestion for next year is to ask the Steward to DEFINE EXACTLY, what a "balked start" is, and how it will be determined - ie - does the field have to maintain the pacecar pace after it leaves the track, or is the pole sitter free to set his own pace.

I would also ask exactly what the polesitter is allowed to do to correct any discrepancy in the distance between the groups that is obvious to him and others. A video camera on the pole car would help there in any appeal or protest against the Steward.

Also, as a clarification to those who may not have read the GCR all the way through, it is ONLY if a new "rule" is either published in the Supplementaries, or addressed in a Drivers Meeting, that that "rule" can be enforced. So, READ THE SUPPS, AND TAPE RECORD THE MEETING!!!!!!

[mblanc]

Per the Message from the Chief Steward:
Jumped Starts
The penalty for jumping or balking the start will be a "stop and go" black flag penalty.

I agree with Richard's interpretation, according to the GCR any new/additional rule needs to be in the printed supplemental regulations, or covered in the drivers meeting. I don't think that covering it in the "Message from the Chief Steward" covers it.

According to Websters, a couple of definitions that are relevant to this use of the word Balk.

4. A hindrance or disappointment; a check.

6. (Baseball) A deceptive gesture of the pitcher, as if to deliver the ball.

Term is most often used in baseball, (a sport I don't like or watch) it is esentially a fake, or starting a pitch, but not following through with it, often to see if a base runner is going to go.

We've all seen a racing balk on the small roundy round tracks coming back for a restart, just as the field bunches down in T3, the leader jumps on the brakes, stacking everybody up real hard, then he accelerates hard and leaves everybody behind, with no chance to pass into T1. Often times, they'll do another restart if it's too obvious, and the next time, he might get black flagged.

I haven't heard anybody say that Justin did anything like that at all, including those that were in the race. I saw the group go up the hill to just past the bridge. I agree that Justin was slightly ahead of Scott. The pace seemed consistent, but was slightly, and I emphasize only slightly slower than the pace car. Didn't appear to be a "crawl." It looked like a fair start, and it seems that others were saying it was also.

I would like to know exactly what the original penalty was for,
1-a balk?
2-too slow of start?
3-something else concerning the start?

Further opinion:
If it was a balk, they didn't follow their own guidelines, though I still question if the letter would hold up the same as "supplementals".

If it was too slow of a start, I don't know how they can enforce it. There is nothing in the GCR about "maintaining pace with the pace car" when it pulls off, nor is there anything about that in the supplementals, nor does the "letter" mention that. A Balk is different from a too slow of pace, or not maintaining pace car speed.

Did they specifically say in the FM/FF drivers meeting "you must absolutely maintain pace with the pace car"? If so, it's STILL a BS call, the speed was not much different. And a further point. the field was not right behind the pace car when leaving T14, they were a bunch of lengths back, did they mistakenly think the pace was so slow to create that gap after the pace car pulled off? It still looked to me that it was a consistant fair pace, only slightly slower than pace car.

A couple weeks ago I was in the starters stand for a start, with a very experienced starter that has several decades in that position. The biggest concern they had was 1-being well grouped, 2-everybody staying in line. They were not afraid to call in somebody being out of line at all, which was surprising to me. Even though I've been in many many starts, I didn't realize it was so critical to be absolutely in line. Seemed to me that the polesitter set the pace, but at that particular track the pace car pulls off very early on the front straight.

Another thought, the GCR says the 2nd pace car should keep the first group in sight, ON THE LONGEST STRAIGHTAWAY. That's a heck of a distance at RA. Not anything like what they used for this race.

As far as getting upset when told they're taking your win away? Who of us wouldn't be? I mean really upset.

I too would like to hear from Peter, but lets not bash him if he gives us feedback and opinion. I'm sure he didn't make the call and he doesn't deserve any personal abuse.

I still can't understand what could have possibly been wrong with that start. It is unjust and a shame, and ruined what would have been a perfect weekend for Don, Gibby and Justin.


Marc

[R. Pare]

Another question to ask and clarify: Just what is the distance that the pole car has to maintain behind the pace car? 1 ft? 100 ft? The distance necessary to keep the first group in sight on the longest straight? ( at RA, that's what? a couple thousand feet?)

[Justin Pritchard]

Okay - it's taken a couple of days to post rationally - but here is what happened.

Went to the drivers meeting, heard all the normal stuff (man, do I want to rant - glad there is a delete key) about the start, nothing about being disqualified for going slower than the pace car.

Cars roll, get split, then the entire field comes to a halt behind our pace car, who is directly behind the FM field. We all roll off together. This is the way we run the pace lap, at a very slow pace, I would estimate between 35-45mph. I can remember thinking that they must be ahead of schedule to do this on a 4 mile track!

Going up the hill from Canada corner we are still right up the back of the FM's. I DO slow down off the back of the pace car, for two reasons.

1) It's the best way to get the field to line up and get ready

2)I don't want another incident like there was at Mid Ohio a couple of years ago when the Fords were sent in to a stalled FM with a nasty crash.

I've started (not bragging here) on pole a few times in my life, including 4 times at the runoffs, and have done the same thing many, many times. I do it now because earlier in my career I always tried to do a fast, early start, but I was warned to slow them up, and I learned from numerous wave-offs that I had to slow the field down to get the entire group to line up and make some starters happy. I also know that start line descisions are not appealable.

Rarrick doesn't pull up along side so I slow down more to get him to pull up, he doesn't for whatever reason, so I build some speed going up the hill (because if you don't I'd be trying to start the race at 3500rpm in first going up a steep hill - if you don't race this is too low and out of the power band and the car will not accelarate (ask Byers about last year)

Race 13 laps very closely with Larue (until he goes off) and Rarick. Last time into Canada we go in with just about all eight wheels locked up! Scott gets into the marbles and goes off and I chugg up the hill. No contact. He gives me the thumbs up next time by so I'm relieved he's not upset.

Get the paper to go see the tower, figure it's about the last lap. Then I meet Ed Ozment. He informs me that I balked the start and have been disqualified and that it is not appealable. He tells me to come back in thirty minutes. I ask why I need to come back in thirty minutes if I've already been disqualified, and he just tells me to come back in thirty minutes. By now I'm getting mad and I yell, I'm not coming back in thirty minutes, turn start to leave and throw my bottle of water at a wall.

As I leave Peter Oliver comes to give me a ride back and I tell him he doesn't want to be around me. All I can think now is how I've just risked my life and others when I had already been DQ'ed for something I'd done many many times before. I loose my temper on a couple of trash cans with a couple of kicks and walk back to the trailer. I must have been a sight because a few people started to come up to me but turned away quickly when they got to about 20 feet!!

That's it. Sat in the trailer for about 45 minutes and tried to cool off, but couldn't. Loaded up, (ok I didn't do much) went back to the hotel and babysat my eldest son. Thankfully his biggest worry was dinner!!(He thinks I won!) I never went back to talk to Ed Ozment.

Could I have handled it better? Definatly. Will I be able to handle it better next time? Probably not. Would the outcome have been different if I had? No, I just gave them the easy way out by loosing my temper. What would I do differently next time? Not start on the pole, just make sure I was in the top four, as it doesn't mean a thing at Road America.

All I'm trying to do now is get a GCR clarification on the rules and powers of start judges and stewards. Write your friendly board member! Erik Skirmants is CenDiv's, Mike Sauce is SEDiv's.

There is the G rated version. Don S has the NC-17 version!

[R. Pare]

Justin;

Glad to see that your blood pressure has subsided a bit - we don't want to lose you to a burst artery! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

What a lousy way to lose a race that you DEFINETELY won on the track, AS PER THE RULES. [img]graemlins/skull.gif[/img]

One bit of info (for anyone reading this) if there is ever a "next time":

You cannot be disqualified without a protest being filed by the SOM or other official or participant.

You are entitled to a hearing for any protest filed against you.

There is no such thing as an unappealable decision by the stewards.

NEVER listen to a Steward if they tell you to go away and come back in 30 minutes - 30 minutes is the time allow to file a protest against their actions, and you would lose that right!

[Terry Hanushek]

Richard

I am unaware of this situation at the Sprints but I do have a couple of procedural comments.

You cannot be disqualified without a protest being filed by the SOM or other official or participant.

The Chief Steward has the power to disqualify a competitor without a protest (or a hearing), see GCR 6.11.3.A. This is called a Chief Steward's Action (CSA). That action can be protested to the SOM by the effected competitor.

A protest may be lodged by an entrant, driver, organization or an officials. Protests do require a hearing by the SOM. The Chief Steward may submit a Request for Action (RFA) to the SOM; it is functionally the same as a protest.

Only decisions of the SOM (protest or RFA) may be appealed to the National Appeals Court.

There is no such thing as an unappealable decision by the stewards.

If a steward (or other person) is serving as a start or finish judge, their decision cannot be protested, see GCR 6.24.1.B

I hope this helps clarify the rules a bit.

Terry

[Tim FF19]

Justin,

Congratulations on your win at the Sprints. While it is small consolation considering what happened, you can at least be reassurred that the FF and FC community knows who WON the race even if the results sheet list another driver (no offense to Scott who clearly ran a hard race). See you at MO.

Tim

[R. Pare]

Terry: I think that in part we may be disagreeing more over poor use of semantics by myself, and misinterpretation of the GCR by yourself, rather that actual fact of the rules:

Originally posted by Terry Hanushek:

The Chief Steward has the power to disqualify a competitor without a protest (or a hearing), see GCR 6.11.3.A. This is called a Chief Steward's Action (CSA). That action can be protested to the SOM by the effected competitor.

True. I used the wrong semantics in particular part of my statement - I should have added the caveat of a CSA being filed instead of just a protest being filed for a decision of action to THEN be taken against the competitor. This does not mean that the decision of the SOM cannot subsequently be protested!

Originally posted by Terry Hanushek:

There is no such thing as an unappealable decision by the stewards. If a steward (or other person) is serving as a start or finish judge, their decision cannot be protested, see GCR 6.24.1.B.

Here we disagree vehemently, primarily because of other parts of the GCR contradict your (seeming) interpretation of that rule:


It states specificly in 15.1 that there is the right to appeal ANY decision or penalty imposed by a steward - which by definition would include actions based on judgements by the line judges.

Also, in 13.1 it states that the right to protest ANY decision, action, omission,etc, by any race official, the organizers, etc.

A decision (opinion concerning an alledged infraction) by a Judge shall be pointed out to the Chief Steward, who has the right to then issue a penalty. Nowhere does it state that a Judge has the right to issue a penalty on his/her own.

To clarify:

In the specific case of a Judge, while the decision of the judge ( which, by the way, is only a decision that an infraction occured, NOT a decision about disqualification)is termed as unprotestable, any decision for action against the competitor made by the SOM or Chief Steward stemming from that judgement IS protestable.

As I stated before, a competitor ALWAYS has the right to redress. For officials to think otherwise is a serious misinterpretation of the GCR and their powers.

[size="1"][ June 24, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: R. Pare ][/size]

[Terry Hanushek]

Deleted premature post

[Terry Hanushek]

Richard

To amplify on my comments on a Chief Steward's Action - the Chief Steward has the authority under GCR 6.11.3.A to disqualify a driver for a violation of the rules. No SOM hearing is required to impose this penalty. The competitor may protest the action to the SOM and receive a hearing from the committee. If a protest is not made within the time limits, the penalty stands and no further redress is available.

Regarding my comment on judges, I undoubtedly confused the issue by mentioning stewards serving as judges. When individuals (whether they have a steward license or not) serve as judges they are not stewards. They are empowered to make decisions of fact. Their decisions are not subject to protest per GCR 6.24.1.B. They cannot impose penalties. Only the Chief Steward (using a CSA) or the SOM (acting on an RFA or Protest) can impose a penalty.

It states specificly in 15.1 that there is the right to appeal ANY decision or penalty imposed by a steward - which by definition would include actions based on judgements by the line judges.

This completely correct. The point that I was (not so clearly) trying to make is the decision of fact by judges is not protestable. You correctly observed that the imposition of a penalty by the Chief Steward or the SOM based a decision of fact is protestable. I apologize for any confusion that I may have created.

As I stated before, a competitor ALWAYS has the right to redress. For officials to think otherwise is a serious misinterpretation of the GCR and their powers.

I completely agree.

Terry

[R. Pare]

Hey! How 'bout that!

One thing though that may add some confusion to the issue of the SOM imposing a penalty:

14.3 Hearing

No penalty shall be imposed by the SOM except after a hearing that follows the proceedures set out in 13.4., Hearing Protest, whether the matter is brought to the attention of the SOM by Protest or by a Chief Steward's Request for Action (See 6.11.4., Request for Action)

( my italics in the above rule quote)

That rule seems to contradict the "No SOM hearing is required to impose this penalty" statement by you.

Thoughts?