Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
not to rehash 20 year rule but!!!

It is interesting to note that with the intergrating of Club and Pro cars that to the spectator there is no 20 year rule. Further more by intergrating the Club and Pro it makes Pro look like it is a bigger number of competitiors than it is, making Pro appear to be more self supporting and viable for marketing and whatevers.
Not to rehash the 20 year rule again, but it does make it appear to be pointless except that older cars can't score the points and therefore pose no threat to newer cars entering the series and making the newer cars appear to be faster then older cars, which I guess is the point.
 

·
Slid'n around 'n havin a ball
Joined
·
2,953 Posts
Thanks for your efforts

Mark, Thanks for your efforts in all the work you've done. We don't have to agree with any of what you've proposed to admire the long hours of thought you've spent on behalf of the sport.
rz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
RE: not to rehash 20 year rule but!!!

I'm not sure I understand your integration of Pro and Club cars? If you mean Pro events also running a Club event, that isn't happening anymore here in the east, and I imagine it won't be long till it's history all over the country.
 

·
Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
RE: not to rehash 20 year rule but!!!

>I'm not sure I understand your integration of Pro and Club
>cars? If you mean Pro events also running a Club event, that
>isn't happening anymore here in the east, and I imagine it
>won't be long till it's history all over the country.

It is a question of event grouping on Pro events that still have concurrent Club events.

In previous years, the Club-only cars ran in a group behind the Pro-only or dual-entered cars, with a five minute gap between.

At least in three of the ProRallys so far this year, thanks to the unified seeding system, organizers have been allowed to put all cars on one big group with Pro/Dual/Club all integrated together.

I'm sure there are arguments for/against both ways of doing things (one group vs two groups) but I think thus far the reaction to this integrated system has been quite favorable from both competitors and organizers.

I don't know if running concurrent ClubRallys with Pro events will die out around the country; it is still needed out west where there have not been the oversubscription issues for ProRally. It may eventually happen. What seems to me more likely to happen is the elimation of double-entering Pro & Club at an event, but that's a whole new thread...

Ben
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top