Page 92 of 92 FirstFirst ... 4282909192
Results 911 to 918 of 918

Thread: 2019 supercars discussion. May contain spoilers.

  1. #911
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,933
    Great result for DJRTP and especially so for the teams Championship.
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

  2. #912
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,933
    Well racing is back and it didn’t take long.


    I have a significant issue with what’s gone on here today.

    I have no issue with drivers being told they can come back on at turn 8, I do have an issue that there needed to be a position redress that would have positioned him as he would have been if it were a street circuit.

    We went through this after Darwin a few years back now. It’s not fair that circumstances and track design can allow different outcomes.

    On top of this the man who did did the right things in an unfortunate situation got hit with a 15 second penalty.

    What for?

    The infringed in this case wasn’t hurt. Very very rarely does this occur and never does that person get his points back post race.

    Fabs turned left, followed the track and re entered safely. He wasn’t penalised for an unsafe re entry so that demonstrates what’s possible and that turn 8 shouldn’t be the re join point.

    What I would have expected was for the spirt to say, Scott re joins in front of Fabs. Heck I thought the team would have issued that directive because at the end of the day both their drivers are fighting for a title.

    Then the sport would have been right in handing Fabs a penalty. That’s a tough one too.

    Like so many of those situations and I really liked how Fabs played that question, his time again he backs out. There are mms in that but Fabs has been screwed over big time by trying to do the right thing.

    He should have followed Scott to turn 8.

    I expected race control to issue a place redress not a DQ or a further time penalty.

    I don’t think you can reward a decision to take out three corners and then come back fighting for 3rd or the position you were end prior to leaving the racing surface.


    What’s the point in having track limit penalties at all if such a short cut is possible.
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

  3. #913
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,933
    That said, no one has an answer for Scott’s car speed. The best car won.
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to HSE2 For This Useful Post:

    WASP (25th May 2019)

  5. #914
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,933
    Lol.

    So apparently Scott has been bombarded by haters.

    So in race no one really knew. Post race, Scott admitted if they got a penalty they would wear it which demonstrates they thought they probably would. Then after the race they start posting the rule that says they are allowed to re join prior to the turn 9 flag.


    You have to stay objective in all this. Have to remain consistent.

    Triple 8 at Bathurst told Jamie Whincup to re dress and he caused an accident. They then tried to say he had done nothing wrong. That initial reaction is often the give away.

    In this case Scott was told to let Chaz passed. There is your tell to say the team themselves felt not enough address was made.

    When people start talking about penalties it’s about the level of address and not the re join point. The re join point is irrelevant to the advantage gained.

    In this case the penalty for going off track was demonstrated by Fabs. The angle or trajectory doesn’t really matter here either.

    Picture there is an obstruction there. What action is required to get back on track.

    The fact it was Scott that was hurt, so we give him back his places, unfortunately that’s a new level of consideration that’s never been applied. Irrelevant to any consideration. How you got off track isn’t what’s being decided on. You left here, re joined here, you were able to beat the entire field by doing so and the moment you leave the racing surface, you aren’t classified in any position.

    IMO the team stuffed up here and probably should have said to Scott come back to your starting spot and let’s race forward. You know what? He still wins. And he does so with out the drama this has created. That would have been the PC action to take. At least a half decent defence could be mounted then. As it turns out it’s stroke of genius as it’s got them a win on the back of Bairds incompetence.

    Fans on both sides are up in arms over this. Not all but the majority of race fans do not think what has happened here is right. That’s not the way you win races and it’s a little surprising the reaction has shocked Scott.

    I am again impressed with Mark Skaife and Craig. I think as racers that amount of piss taking is below the belt universally up and down pit lane. If the sport isn’t prepared to hand out fairness then these tracks need to disappear from the calendar.

    It is unacceptable that circumstances and luck can causes the same sort of contact to have different outcomes.

    If that were triple 8 doing that, we would be up in arms. We can’t have it both ways. No way would we think that sort to detour for that loss of position would be acceptable.
    There is only one team and then only one driver in that team that thinks that is right.

    Let’s see if SC stick fabs up as they did the Tickford drivers last season, because from all reports he was hot on the radio.


    For the life of me I can’t see how Fabs gets 15 seconds on top of effectively doing the right thing and following the track left. I categorically don’t subscribe to the theory Scott going straight ahead on wet grass was his only option. It was the most convenient, for sure. Less risk, for sure, but he is out there by the hand of his own team and a little though the track conditions. That’s tough luck mate. That’s racing and you don’t get a walk because of it.

    I have seen some people say Scott was the victim so it’s alright. No. There are always victims and they never get fairytale endings. By that measure, from this point on, anyone who is punted, we apply a penalty to the offender and call a safety car so as we can get the victim back in his position. That’s effectively what occurred here. That’s how bad this looks.

    It’s yet another blight on the sport and allows our detractors to diminish our results.

    It’s most likely another attempt by race control to stack the numbers for another parity adjustment. Kidding.

    Craig Baird needs to join Seemer. These are just bad calls after bad calls. Craig and his judgement is basically unemployable in the real world. Hell he even said “post race” to start with then capitulation set in. Probably caused by Dane.

    It’s starting to look rather bad with some of these on track calls.

    Chaz at Bathurst on Cam, that’s a penalty, missed
    Alex at Bathurst dangerous re entry, missed.
    Cam on Scott, GP, penalty missed.
    Scott insufficient redress, missed.
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

  6. #915
    Validated User VZTRT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,995
    Did Scott violate the rules? No
    Is the rule wrong? Yes

    He should have got back on where fabs was. Then the 15 second penalty would be just.

    The thing is SVG did this a while back and it was legal. So the precident has been set.

  7. #916
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,933
    Quote Originally Posted by VZTRT View Post
    Did Scott violate the rules? No
    Is the rule wrong? Yes

    He should have got back on where fabs was. Then the 15 second penalty would be just.

    The thing is SVG did this a while back and it was legal. So the precident has been set.
    There is no issue with the rules. There is an issue with the determination of advantage which is the domain or discretion by the stewards and the anger of most of our discussions when things go against us.

    Skaife has come out and done what I regard as an excellent summation of the issues.

    I guess the first point is to say Fabs also didn’t know he had the option of going straight ahead.

    I think had he done so, both equally right under the track specific rule, there would have been immense pressure to penalise both.

    I think that’s worth thinking about. Two cars, two team cars, cut the circuit and come back on in their positions. Fabs has inadvertently done DJR a huge favour.


    The other issue is being consistent race to race to race. That’s what we want right.

    You can’t have a situation as follows.

    Adelaide.
    Fabs attempts to pass Scott at the T9 hairpin. Stuffs up and sends them both down the run off.

    do the cars then turn and face oncoming traffic risking a head on?

    yes so the allowance at other tracks in the name of safety is defined by the lowest existing practice.

    how many tracks or corners is it physically possible to do what occurred?

    Very few and of those in some cases a mechanism has been erected to slow the competitor down to create a greater penalty for being off track.

    The real issue here is not in determining advantage gained but the expectation of inheritance through misfortune.

    It’s that other competitors were denied positional advantage which then obviously becomes an advantage for the car leaving the track.

    In 99.9% of instances like this Scott is back with Fabs. That’s the truth of it.

    The rules saying where you can come back on is not the determination of penalties or redress. This is this bullshit discretionary judgement that normally hurts us but in this case has worked very handsomely for us.

    I feel for Fabs here. I am not sold on that even being a penalty at all.

    Sell me on how Cam gets no penalty for running into Scott and taking him out, and fabs barely touches Scott and Scott wins the race.

    This is epic bullshit.

    We shouldn’t get to pick and choose when we like rulings.

    While I have nothing against being able to rejoin in the straight ahead, consistency dictates a suitable slowing down penalty that brings the action back to what you experience everywhere else is warranted.

    That’s not a rule issue it’s a commonsense issue by Baird. That’s what they say they are trying to do but keep finding new ways to stuff up.

    The end result is this win is now tainted in the eyes of probably the majority of race fans.


    To this is suggestion I subscribe to the thought of consistency. I am currently still residing in the house of Skaife.

    I did like his take which no doubt has been influenced by those in pit lane.

    I guess we wait and see what changes come out of this because that will be the true indication of right or wrong
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

  8. #917
    Senior Member 13726548's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,563
    Well being a family forum I won't make jokes about this...
    Thank you Ford for the memories

  9. #918
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,933
    I haven’t bothered to watch the race today but what a fantastic effort by DJR to put yesterday behind them. Serious mental toughness there.

    Over the weekend I didn’t think Fabs deserved to be hurt in the points like this. That’s a combination of Scott imo not being hurt enough and then compounding with a double down. That’s racing. I fully expect we will see changes to Winton before next year to prevent this happening again.

    Tickford are back to where they were. Worth noting in any parity discussion.

    Some positive signs for WAU.
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

Page 92 of 92 FirstFirst ... 4282909192

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •