24 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

I thought i would start a thread to continue this discussion.

 

The rules regarding penalty can be found on Page 56 and page 57 of the GCR.

 

Note that there is a rage of what penalties could be assessed, and the point system but this basically discretionary. There are mandatory penalties but not in our class only is Spec racer Ford, Formula enterprise and Enterprise sports racer. 

 

There is not much guidance in the Rules about when or if penalties should be handed out.

 

I am going to try and cut and paste the rules but the link gets you to those two pages.

 

So the question is, should there be a mandatory penalty for an undisputed intentional rule violation?

 

Would this go further than the current rules as a deterrent?

 

While I understand from past discussions that there are penalties in the form of Loss of position, points, contingency, community respect is that enough? In some intentional instances, should there be mandatory probation, points. or something else? That is the question.

 

IMO the penalties should be limited to the driver/owner. The driver owner has the ultimate responsibility for the car, you cannot allow the passing of the buck. That said, a shop or builder, if smart would get sign offs on anything that is not legal, or I suspect they will not be in business to long.

 

Again, note we are talking about full knowledge and intentional rule violations. There will be lots of exceptions where people do not know or intend to violate a rule so we are likely talking about only a few instances where something like this pops up, but when it does, it should be a big deal.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

https://dk1xgl0d43mu....pdf?1509465251

 

 

 

7.

PENALTIES

All Club Racing participants are subject to control by SCCA, the GCR, and the Supplemental Regulations. This

Section specifies the penalties for violating the GCR and the Supplemental Regulations.

7.1.

WHO MAY BE PENALIZED

Any entrant, driver,

crew member, organizer, official, or SCCA member may be penalized.

7.2.

RANGE OF PENALTIES

In increasing order of severity, the range of penalties is as follows:

A.

Fine ($1-$99)

B.

Reprimand

NOTE: A

reprimand against an SCCA member shall be noted in his license file.

C.

Fine ($100-$249)

D.

Loss of event

points

E.

Fine ($250)

NOTE: All

fines must be in whole dollar amounts only.

F.

Loss of Time, Lap, or Finishing Position

G.

Probation of competition privileges

Although the probation is effective immediately, the probation period does not begin until the license, as

well as any imposed fine, is received by the Chairman

SOM or the National Office. Any member on proba

-

tion must notify the event

Race Director or Chief Steward prior to his first on track session or beginning

his assigned official’s responsibilities. Failure to notify the

Race Director or Chief Steward is a violation of

probation.

1.

Length of

Probation

Probation may be up to 12 months; or it may be specified as a number of SCCA Club Racing event days

or SCCA Club Racing event sanctions.

2.

Term(s) of

Probation

A driver on probation may be restricted to competing in his Division; limited to competing in certain

types of levels of events; or required to perform specified event related activities, including attending

an SCCA Drivers’ School. Participating in SCCA Practice Days or SCCA events that are not sanctioned

by SCCA Club Racing will not fulfill probation.

3.

Violation of

Probation

Failing to comply with the probation terms may result in further penalties assigned by a review

committee appointed to hear the violation, by Driver or Official Review, or by the SOM at the event

where the violation occurs.

H.

Disqualification

An entrant, driver, or car may be disqualified from a competition or an event. Rights to awards in the

competition or event are automatically forfeited.

I.

Suspension of license privileges

SCCA license privileges for a driver,

crew, or official may be suspended for a period of time not to exceed

12 months. A license holder whose privileges are suspended must immediately surrender his license to the

Chairman of the

SOM, review committee, or Court of Appeals. While the suspension is effective immedi

-

ately, the suspension period does not begin until the license, as well as any imposed fine, is received by the

Chairman of the

SOM, review committee, or the National Office.

A member whose Competition License has been suspended shall not participate in a Club Racing event

using any other grade or form of competition license. When the suspension is the result of a non-compliant

vehicle, the infraction shall be noted in the Vehicle Logbook.

The suspension document for a Competition License holder will note whether a member whose license

privileges have been suspended may participate in further Club Racing events in another capacity using

another type or grade of license.

J.

Loss of accrued

points

A competitor may be penalized all

points accrued during the current season.

K.

Expulsion from SCCA

A member may be expelled from the SCCA as provided in the SCCA Bylaws.

7.3.

MULTIPLE PENALTIES

7. Penalties

GCR - 57

Multiple penalties may be imposed. In addition, penalties may be consecutive (for example, 2 month suspen

-

sion followed by 6 month probation). Both suspension and probation, each for the maximum allowable term,

may be imposed for a single violation.

7.4.

PENALTY POINTS

A.

Penalties assessed by the SOM or the Court of Appeals accumulate

points according to the following

schedule:

1.

Fine ($1 - $99)

no

points

2.

Reprimand

1

point

3.

Fine ($100 - $249)

1 point

4.

Loss of event

points

1 point

5.

Fine ($250)

2

points

6.

Loss of time, lap, or finishing position

2

points

7.

Probation of SCCA competition privileges

3

points

8.

Disqualification

4

points

9.

Suspension of SCCA competition privileges

6

points

10.

Loss of accrued championship or series

points

7

points

B.

Penalties imposed by the

Race Director or Chief Steward do not incur penalty points. If a Chief Stew

-

ard’s Action is protested and the

protest is disallowed (upholding the

Chief Steward’s Action), the SOM

may, at their discretion, assign penalty points as listed above.

C.

When multiple penalties result from a single action, only the most severe

penalty accrues points.

D.

Automatic penalties are imposed according to the following schedule:

Condition

Automatic Penalty

11-14

points accumulated in

consecutive 3 year period

Probation for 6 months or 6 events

determined by Divisional

Executive

Steward

15 or more accumulated in

consecutive 3 year period

Suspension of competition privileges for

6 months

Invalid Statement of Facts

Affidavit

Event disqualification, 60 day suspension

of competition privileges, and 6 penalty

points

Refusing to allow teardown in

Mechanical Protest,Request for

Action, or Chief Steward’s Action

Event disqualification, 6 month

suspension of competition privileges,

$250 fine, and 6

penalty points

Non-Compliance in the following

classes:

Formula Enterprise

Spec Racer Ford

Enterprises Sports Racer

FE: see 9.1.1.I.19

SRF: see 9.1.8.E.T

ESR: see 9.1.8.H.18

NOTES:

-Penalties caused by accumulated penalty points do not themselves result in further

points.

-Penalty points expire 3 calendar years from the date they were incurred.

7.5.

AMENDMENT OF RESULTS

Whenever a penalty affects the final

results, including when a driver or car is disqualified, the

SOM shall

advance the subsequent competitors in the finishing order and advise the

Chief of

Timing and Scoring of any

amendment to the results.

7.6.

PUBLICATION

SCCA has the right to publish that any individual or organization has been penalized, the

penalty, and the

reasons. An individual or organization included in the notice of

penalty has no right to act against the SCCA

or against any other individual for publishing the notice or for its contents.

[John Nesbitt]

As it happens, SCCA stewards work with a set of standard penalty guidelines.  The divisional Executive Stewards established these for use at every event for common offenses.

 

They are guidelines, and event officials may deviate from them according to circumstances.  A few years ago, when I was involved at the national level, we tracked application of the guidelines.  We found that penalties followed the guidelines in approx. 80% of cases, with the balance fairly evenly divided between more/less severe.

 

(Note that the Runoffs compliance penalties are slightly different.  For a non-compliant car post-race, the standard penalty is DQ.  This is almost the invariant penalty.  The only exception of which I am aware was the (in)famous 'plunge cut' at Laguna Seca.)

 

Herewith an extract from the 2017 guidelines, covering compliance issues:

 

1. Car not in Compliance (GCR 9.1)

a. Prior to the Race: If found after qualifying, loss of Qualifying times

b. Post-Race: A non-compliant car shall be moved behind compliant cars and may lose points.

 

2. Car not in Compliance (GCR 2.1.2 and 2.1.3) For deliberate, substantial, non-compliance.

a. Disqualification; Suspension or Probation

[Peter Olivola]

I'm not aware of any situation where the offending driver admitted deliberately hitting  someone and wasn't penalized appropriately.  It's a bit different with technical compliance, but in both cases, applying a fixed penalty would require proof of intent.  The Enterprises cars have sealed components making that an easy decision.  

 

I think you're looking to solve a low percentage (proving intent) problem with a broadside salvo from an Iowa class battlship.

[Johnny D]

I'm not aware of any situation where the offending driver admitted deliberately hitting  someone and wasn't penalized appropriately.  It's a bit different with technical compliance, but in both cases, applying a fixed penalty would require proof of intent.  The Enterprises cars have sealed components making that an easy decision.  

 

I think you're looking to solve a low percentage (proving intent) problem with a broadside salvo from an Iowa class battlship.

 

Just to be clear the title above is "conduct" not "contact".

 

And we're talking about blatant cheating so there's no "proving intent"

 

Just sayin,

 

J~

[Peter Olivola]

Just to be clear the title above is "conduct" not "contact".

 

And we're talking about blatant cheating so there's no "proving intent"

 

Just sayin,

 

J~

 

Define blatant.  Then show how you prove intent absent an outright admission.

[Johnny D]

Define blatant.  Then show how you prove intent absent an outright admission.

 

A 38mm restrictor plate opened up to 50mm

 

who cares about admission ??

[Johnny D]

Define blatant. 

 

bla·tant
ˈblātnt/
adjective
adjective: blatant

    (of bad behavior) done openly and unashamedly.
    "blatant lies"
    synonyms: flagrant, glaring, obvious, undisguised, unconcealed, open; More
    shameless, barefaced, naked, unabashed, unashamed, unblushing, brazen
    "it was a blatant lie"
    antonyms: inconspicuous, shamefaced
        completely lacking in subtlety; very obvious.
        "forcing herself to resist his blatant charm"

Origin

 

 

J~

[John Nesbitt]

A couple of thoughts, but first let me establish my credentials.

 

Before becoming a steward, I was the driver representative for one of the run groups at Summit Point.  On one or two occasions, I took a driver aside for a private chat and suggested that he see to the legality of the <part> on his car.  That was enough to make the <part>, or the car, go away.

 

As a steward, I have dealt with many compliance situations.  In some cases, it was clear that the driver was unwitting and/or clueless (i.e. there was no intent).  In a few cases, there was intent to cheat.  In at least two of the latter, it was not clear whether the driver was party to the cheat.

 

I have never really understood why someone would want to “win” with a non-compliant car.

 

Lest you think that I am mushy on enforcement, I hold the record for handing out the most one-year suspensions in the last 15 years, perhaps in SCCA history.  I am fair-minded, but not a soft touch.

 

So, thoughts:

 

1.  It is very often difficult or impossible to establish intent.  “Blatant cheating” sounds impressive, but is very difficult to define or describe.  As Peter pointed out, unless someone acknowledges cheating, or you catch him adding weight after crossing the scales, you really cannot decide on his motives.

 

2.  The incident that triggered this thread (and the earlier one) carried some heavy consequences for the offender.  He lost a Runoffs podium, he will see himself listed forever in the results as DQ, and he suffered a major hit to his reputation.   I understand that opinions may vary, but I see him severely punished.

 

3.  I am, in general, not in favor of mandatory penalties.  The range of circumstances is simply too great, and motivations too unclear, to support them.

 

The penalty guidelines do a very good job of producing consistent outcomes for commonly occurring offenses.  When coming to assign a penalty, I, and every steward I know, start with the guidelines.

 

4.  The purpose of a penalty is two-fold:  first, to punish and/or correct the behavior; and, second, to discourage similar acts.  I believe that the penalty in this case meets both those tests.

 

Penalties should be proportionate and on a scale.  If you hang someone for shoplifting, what do you do for murder?  Club Racing rules provide for cumulative consequences.  However, I doubt very much that the offender in this case will ever again deliberately present a non-compliant car.

[Johnny D]

I understand John, thank you for your service. We're just visiting this and seeing if it gains any traction. I assume Frank's referring to just SM.

 

Currently after one DQ you can really get DQ'd again and still not get into trouble (by the points system), not until the 3rd time. And everyone is sorry, I know.

I think everyone knows Blatant or not, underweight is not and there are many others that are not.

 

What better way "to discourage similar acts" than to have a suspension when appropriate. How long and for what could be discussed.

 

As stated to not get a tear down has a far worse penalty than getting busted ??

 

I see you point and you've been around, and this doesn't happen all the time.

I just can't stop thinking the steward tell someone "if you do this 2 more times your really going to be in trouble"

 

J~

[Mark]

So what happens to the car when a competitor chooses to refuse inspection? He gets a fine/suspension, great. The car?  No need to prove compliance as near as I can tell.. Everything I have seen/read thus far deals with penalties to the driver, no mention of ensuring the car is compliant before being allowed to compete if an inspection is refused.

[Peter Olivola]

A 38mm restrictor plate opened up to 50mm

 

who cares about admission ??

 

I think John gave you a clear explanation of the enforcement challenge with respect to the ideas being presented in this thread.  How many 38 mm restrictors have been found to be 50 mm?  How do you determine intent without an admission?

[Johnny D]

So how about a note in the cars logbook of the dq’d part and a fix ticket where you have to get the car tech’d again to confirm the part was corrected?

[BNaumann]

So how about a note in the cars logbook of the dq’d part and a fix ticket where you have to get the car tech’d again to confirm the part was corrected?

Isn't that how logbooks work already?

[Johnny D]

Sorry the comment above was for Mark issue.

As for enforcement challenges ?? If they get dq’d you figure out if it’s blatant or not.
Sounds like a cop out on you part. This is really that hard?

The control arm was slotted to gain a advantage in camber.
Well he didn’t “intent” too ??

J~

[Johnny D]

Isn't that how logbooks work already?

You would think but I’m not sure, Mark seems to be having an issue

J~

[Mark]

Yup. The rules address a competitor / driver refusing tech but do nothing to ensure the car is compliant after the fact. Again, this is SCCA, not sure on the NASA CCR. If there is something in the rules that address this already please let me know as I've been unable to find anything and it seems like a huge loophole.

 

. 

[mhiggins10]

Sorry the comment above was for Mark issue.

As for enforcement challenges ?? If they get dq’d you figure out if it’s blatant or not.
Sounds like a cop out on you part. This is really that hard?

The control arm was slotted to gain a advantage in camber.
Well he didn’t “intent” too ??

J~

He didn't intend to cheat, he was just getting the same camber as everyone else of course!  Totally not INTENTIONAL or BLATANT cheating.  No sir.  Not at all.

[Johnny D]

He didn't intend to cheat, he was just getting the same camber as everyone else of course!  Totally not INTENTIONAL or BLATANT cheating.  No sir.  Not at all.

Being facetious?

How doesn’t a control get slotted with no intent to cheat??

That like my engine isn’t as fast as top guys so I modify it get it that fast, right ?

J~

[mhiggins10]

Being facetious?
How doesn’t a control get slotted with no intent to cheat??
That like my engine isn’t as fast as top guys so I modify it get it that fast, right ?
J~

I looked for the sarcasm, tag but couldn't find it. Totally being facetious.

And that was my exact though too, but I don't want to derail this when there is another thread for that topic.

[Johnny D]

For Mark, did we want to establish a protocol to lock down the paddock until the driver that declined tear down has provided the log book ?

 

J~