Joined
·
2,759 Posts
Here 3 more proposals to PRB to share for your thought.
1) Rescind the 20 yr rule . No one can ever say the request to rescind it was never made.
2) 4 events instead of 5 for a Nat'l chmap. west Coasters don;t have to go so far to be scored for the champioships. It won't make any difference in who wins so why not?
3) A propsal on a process on the exclusion thing for unsportsmanlike conduct. It'll be interesting to see if this gets any traction.
Don't be too mean to me; I am whooped from writing out all this stuff. And, again, let the PRB review and publish and ASK for comment befopre piling on too much.
Regards,
Mark Boowers
--------------------
Proposal Discussion:
A rule was added in 2002 to exclude cars older than 20 years from competition in ProRally in G2, G5, and Open classes. This has resulted in the exclusion of some very competitive and exciting cars, and has placed a financial burden on several SCCA members who must build newer cars to continue competing in ProRally.
Many active members of the rally community view this as an unnecessary restriction that does not serve the sport in any quantifiable manner. This rule was ostensibly put in place with the rationale that manufacturers would be more apt to invest in sponsorship if only newer cars were allowed in ProRally. There has been no quantifiable proof of this, and since the majority of competitors are in ProRally for sport, and not for business reasons, this rule provides no benefit for this majority, and imposes a burden on some members with no counterbalancing benefit to the community as a whole.
I would request the following change to the rules:
Section 10.1.A.5: Delete the line that reads ? Open, Group 5, and Group 2 classes - 20 years.?
-------------------
Proposal Discussion:
A rule was added in 2002 to require competition in 5 ProRally events to be eligible for ProRally overall and class championships. This places an unfair burden on West Coast competitors who must travel much further than east coast or central competitors to attend 5 ProRally events. I would suggest this be reduced to 4 events, until 5 ProRally events within 1200 miles are available to all west competitors. This will have the benefit to competitors to advertise that they are competing for a National Class championship without unfair burden on west coast competitors. I also think this will not have any detriment to the marketability of the series, and will have no practical effect on the overall or class championships.
I would request the following change to the rules:
Section 9.1.A: In the third paragraph, change the words ?at least 5 SCCA Pro Rally Championship events.? to ?at least 4 SCCA Pro Rally Championship events.?
-------------------
Proposal Discussion:
A recent exclusion of a competitor at RIM for unsportsmanlike conduct has led me to closely read the rules sections governing penalties, particularly exclusion, protests, and appeals. While many good processes are in place, I think that some of the processes are either not well understood or not well described in the case of exclusion of a competitor while an event is in progress.
I think that all would agree that:
a) The organizers need the tool of exclusion for protection of the sport in general and of an event in particular, and to do their best to insure safe conduct of an event and the participants.
b) Competitors charged with this most serious offense should have a right of review and appeal.
c) If this occurs during an event, the competitors should be afforded an opportunity for defense, as exclusion and later exoneration still leaves the competitor ?punished? because he/she could not complete the event and has lost the opportunity for championship points.
In looking at various sections of the rules, a reading of the rules leads to the following understanding:
- Section 8.5 requires us to conduct ourselves well, but provides no definition of unsportsmanlike conduct except for alcohol or drug use. Further, the processes described are clearly for post event disciplinary action, and do not serve a use for settling a possible exclusion during an event.
- Section 8.4 deals with the Appeals process, and, as in section 8.5, this is a post event process, not of use during an event.
- Section 8.3.A.2 does provide for a process that could be conducted while an event is in process.
- Section 8.2 does not mention unsportsmanlike conduct as an offense for any penalty.
I would like to request the following rules changes be implemented. I believe that this change will protect the needs of organizers to exclude competitors causing real safety or public relations problems during an event. It also provides a real definition of the offense of unsportsmanlike conduct that can be used for decision making and understanding by competitors; this is important to prevent extremes of interpretation by either organizers or competitors. And, it can prevent unwarranted exclusions via process that is clear.
Add section 8.2.C.13: Exclusion for unsportsmanlike conduct. This penalty can apply to actions by competitors or their crew during an event. A charge of unsportsmanlike conduct that can result in exclusion of a competitor during an event should meet one of the following criteria: Fighting; committing driving offenses that create specific and provable danger to persons or property; consumption of alcohol or use of controlled substances; creating disturbances; extreme verbal abuse aimed at officials or the public; failure to obey or cooperate with a public official or law enforcement officer.
(continued)
A competitor charged with exclusion for unsportsmanlike conduct will be presented with the charge at an extended break during the event action. If the competitor chooses to file a protest per the procedures in 8.3, he/she must file the protest within 30 minutes of presentation of the charge. The competitor will be allowed to continue in the event until the Protest Committee has rendered a judgment, or until the event has ended.
END
1) Rescind the 20 yr rule . No one can ever say the request to rescind it was never made.
2) 4 events instead of 5 for a Nat'l chmap. west Coasters don;t have to go so far to be scored for the champioships. It won't make any difference in who wins so why not?
3) A propsal on a process on the exclusion thing for unsportsmanlike conduct. It'll be interesting to see if this gets any traction.
Don't be too mean to me; I am whooped from writing out all this stuff. And, again, let the PRB review and publish and ASK for comment befopre piling on too much.
Regards,
Mark Boowers
--------------------
Proposal Discussion:
A rule was added in 2002 to exclude cars older than 20 years from competition in ProRally in G2, G5, and Open classes. This has resulted in the exclusion of some very competitive and exciting cars, and has placed a financial burden on several SCCA members who must build newer cars to continue competing in ProRally.
Many active members of the rally community view this as an unnecessary restriction that does not serve the sport in any quantifiable manner. This rule was ostensibly put in place with the rationale that manufacturers would be more apt to invest in sponsorship if only newer cars were allowed in ProRally. There has been no quantifiable proof of this, and since the majority of competitors are in ProRally for sport, and not for business reasons, this rule provides no benefit for this majority, and imposes a burden on some members with no counterbalancing benefit to the community as a whole.
I would request the following change to the rules:
Section 10.1.A.5: Delete the line that reads ? Open, Group 5, and Group 2 classes - 20 years.?
-------------------
Proposal Discussion:
A rule was added in 2002 to require competition in 5 ProRally events to be eligible for ProRally overall and class championships. This places an unfair burden on West Coast competitors who must travel much further than east coast or central competitors to attend 5 ProRally events. I would suggest this be reduced to 4 events, until 5 ProRally events within 1200 miles are available to all west competitors. This will have the benefit to competitors to advertise that they are competing for a National Class championship without unfair burden on west coast competitors. I also think this will not have any detriment to the marketability of the series, and will have no practical effect on the overall or class championships.
I would request the following change to the rules:
Section 9.1.A: In the third paragraph, change the words ?at least 5 SCCA Pro Rally Championship events.? to ?at least 4 SCCA Pro Rally Championship events.?
-------------------
Proposal Discussion:
A recent exclusion of a competitor at RIM for unsportsmanlike conduct has led me to closely read the rules sections governing penalties, particularly exclusion, protests, and appeals. While many good processes are in place, I think that some of the processes are either not well understood or not well described in the case of exclusion of a competitor while an event is in progress.
I think that all would agree that:
a) The organizers need the tool of exclusion for protection of the sport in general and of an event in particular, and to do their best to insure safe conduct of an event and the participants.
b) Competitors charged with this most serious offense should have a right of review and appeal.
c) If this occurs during an event, the competitors should be afforded an opportunity for defense, as exclusion and later exoneration still leaves the competitor ?punished? because he/she could not complete the event and has lost the opportunity for championship points.
In looking at various sections of the rules, a reading of the rules leads to the following understanding:
- Section 8.5 requires us to conduct ourselves well, but provides no definition of unsportsmanlike conduct except for alcohol or drug use. Further, the processes described are clearly for post event disciplinary action, and do not serve a use for settling a possible exclusion during an event.
- Section 8.4 deals with the Appeals process, and, as in section 8.5, this is a post event process, not of use during an event.
- Section 8.3.A.2 does provide for a process that could be conducted while an event is in process.
- Section 8.2 does not mention unsportsmanlike conduct as an offense for any penalty.
I would like to request the following rules changes be implemented. I believe that this change will protect the needs of organizers to exclude competitors causing real safety or public relations problems during an event. It also provides a real definition of the offense of unsportsmanlike conduct that can be used for decision making and understanding by competitors; this is important to prevent extremes of interpretation by either organizers or competitors. And, it can prevent unwarranted exclusions via process that is clear.
Add section 8.2.C.13: Exclusion for unsportsmanlike conduct. This penalty can apply to actions by competitors or their crew during an event. A charge of unsportsmanlike conduct that can result in exclusion of a competitor during an event should meet one of the following criteria: Fighting; committing driving offenses that create specific and provable danger to persons or property; consumption of alcohol or use of controlled substances; creating disturbances; extreme verbal abuse aimed at officials or the public; failure to obey or cooperate with a public official or law enforcement officer.
(continued)
A competitor charged with exclusion for unsportsmanlike conduct will be presented with the charge at an extended break during the event action. If the competitor chooses to file a protest per the procedures in 8.3, he/she must file the protest within 30 minutes of presentation of the charge. The competitor will be allowed to continue in the event until the Protest Committee has rendered a judgment, or until the event has ended.
END
