A Points Solution to the Drive Thru Dilemna

Average Punter · 12 Dec 2006, 02:12 (Ref:1788554)

OK so maybe I've been taking too many Valiums instead of dispensing them, but I've been thinking about the penalty from Phillip Island.

Here's a thought.

What if in addition to a drive thru penalty, a points penalty is imposed on the offending driver so that he is unable to score more points in that race than the bloke he punted???

That way even though Rick finished further up the order than Craig, he keeps his track position but can't score more points than Craig did. In other words they both score the same points for that race.

If the bloke you punt finishes higher than you he gets to keep his points, but if you beat him home, you score the same points he did.

SO

After race three Craig and Rick are level and Craig wins on a countback (more round wins)

Sure a drive thru is usually sufficient penalty but on Sunday it wasn't as Craig's car was damaged.

What do you learned individuals think?

mtpanorama · 12 Dec 2006, 02:26 (Ref:1788557)

AP,
I have been having the same thoughts about a solution to the problem. I am a Ford fan and didn't like to see Lowndes loose the title fight on the weekend, but RK's drive thru was a justified penalty for his contact on Lowndes. The problem was that his contact caused damage to be done to Lowndes's car and ruined his race.
We see this happen alll the time, car A is hit by car B, car A is either off the track in the sand or is hit by cars C,D,E ....... and is unable to continue. Car B who initiated the whole thing is givena drive thru and continues on to score points in the race , whilst the innocent car A scores no points.

There definately needs to be some adjustment made to the penalty system so the punishment fits the outcome of the crime, no just the commiting of the crime.

v8smoker · 12 Dec 2006, 02:34 (Ref:1788560)

No points after 15th next year problem solved
Look to the future you get a sore neck looking back

Dazz · 12 Dec 2006, 02:49 (Ref:1788567)

I just don't like the idea of a drive through for every offense.

Take a "jumped start" where the car moves, stops, then goes on the green. usually there is no advantage whatsoever gained, and even if there is a couple of inches, it's certainly not worth a drive through in as far as the time penalty that that causes.

Maybe a 10 or 20 second time penalty would be better so at least the driver is not completely stuffed from lap one.

Anyway, lets hope that 2007 is a far better year for the rule makers, drivers and umpires.

goosel · 12 Dec 2006, 03:12 (Ref:1788576)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtpanorama

AP,
I have been having the same thoughts about a solution to the problem. I am a Ford fan and didn't like to see Lowndes loose the title fight on the weekend, but RK's drive thru was a justified penalty for his contact on Lowndes. The problem was that his contact caused damage to be done to Lowndes's car and ruined his race.
We see this happen alll the time, car A is hit by car B, car A is either off the track in the sand or is hit by cars C,D,E ....... and is unable to continue. Car B who initiated the whole thing is givena drive thru and continues on to score points in the race , whilst the innocent car A scores no points.

There definately needs to be some adjustment made to the penalty system so the punishment fits the outcome of the crime, no just the commiting of the crime.

Even if the outcome of the crime could have been avoided, if Lowndes was more patient in re-entering the track?!

Rick should just be penalised for his actions, not Lowndes' as well.

mtpanorama · 12 Dec 2006, 03:29 (Ref:1788581)

Quote:

Originally Posted by goosel

Even if the outcome of the crime could have been avoided, if Lowndes was more patient in re-entering the track?!

Rick should just be penalised for his actions, not Lowndes' as well.

This is where the problem will never be solved. I agree that if Lowndes didint roll forward, he probably wouldn't have been hit, but then again if he wasn't turned around in the first place he wouldnt have gotten hit by the following cars.
It's a bit like the chicken and the egg....................

SSbaby · 12 Dec 2006, 03:40 (Ref:1788587)

What if driver A gets into another tangle with another competitor who puts driver A out of the race, what fortunes for driver B?

goosel · 12 Dec 2006, 04:37 (Ref:1788609)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtpanorama

This is where the problem will never be solved. I agree that if Lowndes didint roll forward, he probably wouldn't have been hit, but then again if he wasn't turned around in the first place he wouldnt have gotten hit by the following cars.
It's a bit like the chicken and the egg....................

Not really, no. Todd didn't get hit, because he made sure he re-entered the track when it was clear.

I think it opens too many doors if the whole "it depends how the outcome" scenario. There are too many what if's, and it also brings driver's reactions into the equation, which are never consistent.

Sure, if the direct result was that Lowndes ran into a wall and wrote off his car and was injured, then this logic could apply. But I don't think you can rely on that in this case, because it was Lowndes' decisions after the incident that cause the damage, not the incident itself.

He chose to re-enter the track straight away, and risk getting hit. And this clearly was not the right decision at the time. I can only imagine how frustrated he was when he went off, and this probably clouded his judgement.

Average Punter · 12 Dec 2006, 04:54 (Ref:1788611)

Don't think damage or injury or decisions made on the spur of the moment are the issue.

I just reckon that if you punt someone, and it's considered serious enough to warrant a drive thru, then you shouldn't be able to score more points than the bloke you barrelled into.

Take Rick Kelly's agricultural move on Jason Bright at Indy a few years ago. That time from memory Jason's PWR car was a mess and he was concussed. Under the "AP rule" Rick can't score more points for that race than Jason. Since Jason scored nil, Rickster gets the same...

barney551 · 12 Dec 2006, 05:03 (Ref:1788613)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtpanorama

This is where the problem will never be solved. I agree that if Lowndes didint roll forward, he probably wouldn't have been hit, but then again if he wasn't turned around in the first place he wouldnt have gotten hit by the following cars.
It's a bit like the chicken and the egg....................

I know this is off the thread topic ....

But.... I have to ask ... when did CL leave the track.

From what I saw he hit TK sending him off and Cl's car turned sideways across the track...

Yes he may have been able to go forward .. but cant see where there was a re-entry.

goosel · 12 Dec 2006, 05:03 (Ref:1788614)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Average Punter

Don't think damage or injury or decisions made on the spur of the moment are the issue.

I just reckon that if you punt someone, and it's considered serious enough to warrant a drive thru, then you shouldn't be able to score more points than the bloke you barrelled into.

Take Rick Kelly's agricultural move on Jason Bright at Indy a few years ago. That time from memory Jason's PWR car was a mess and he was concussed. Under the "AP rule" Rick can't score more points for that race than Jason. Since Jason scored nil, Rickster gets the same...

If that was a result directly of the incident, then that could be fair enough.

But in this scenario, really, how long is a piece of string?! What if Lowndes did manage to rejoin the race successfully, but then half a lap later, was run off the road again while trying to overtake a slower car? Is it still considered as a result of Rick? The only reason he would have been caught at the back of the pack with the slower cars is a result of Rick hitting him.

Realistically, this was two seperate incidents. Yes, Lowndes did get put in that position because Rick tapped him. But Rick didn't directly cause Davidson to hit Lowndes.

barney551 · 12 Dec 2006, 05:07 (Ref:1788616)

That scenario is not a problem goosel as the event was over ... RK would still get the drive through for the indescretion and the second incident would be dealt with accordingly.

Davison hitting CL was directly caused by the incident!!

btw TK spun the car and reentered the track while other traffic was still coming past.

also with CL stranded in the lower half of the corner it was not possible for him to roll further forward off the track as the rest of the field were filing through.

Just looked again at the YouTube footage

bazil · 12 Dec 2006, 05:21 (Ref:1788617)

Simple Solution.

Just award the winner of the round a bonus number of points that way someone that wins regulary should win the Championship instead of the fascicle situation where 2 championships have been won by drivers that have only 1 round win between them.Todd Kelly for example only ended up with 10 points more for the round win than Frosty got for second at P.I.

A round bonus of say 50 points would do the trick, and to go a bit further reward race wins with a similar bonus so that round wins by Drivers that dont win a race like Richards in Perth dont happen. To hell with measured consistancy it called Motor RACING!

Chatters · 12 Dec 2006, 06:05 (Ref:1788641)

Quote:

Originally Posted by goosel

But in this scenario, really, how long is a piece of string?! What if Lowndes did manage to rejoin the race successfully, but then half a lap later, was run off the road again while trying to overtake a slower car? Is it still considered as a result of Rick? The only reason he would have been caught at the back of the pack with the slower cars is a result of Rick hitting him.

What race were you watching? In the race I saw Lowdnes spun and stopped in the middle of the track. Nothing he could do but hope everyone made it past him, which history shows it didn't.

AP, good idea! A drive through is, at the moment, the only mid race penalty that can be given (except of course the rare pit lane time penalty- I'm sure Murph remembers), and I for one like to see accidents taken care of during the race so we don't have hours and days of protests afterwards.

In the case of Lowndes vs Kelly this would work, because Craig recieved damage and couldn't go as fast for the rest of the race. Now, reverse the roles (sort of), and say it was Kelly that spun and got damage from Davison, while Lowndes only spun, would this penalty work? Rick would have been deemed in the wrong and may have had to have this penalty put on him, which would mean even if the car was still driveable at maximum speed he couldn't score more points than Lowndes. And say Lowndes retired due to the damage- Would it be right to give no points to Rick?

IMO, yes, but that's just my two cents worth.

SSbaby · 12 Dec 2006, 06:24 (Ref:1788644)

What happens when you have a chain reaction? Happens on the tighter circuits, especially the first corner at Adelaide?

Pro Racer · 12 Dec 2006, 10:06 (Ref:1788787)

good idea AP, but i think with next years no points after 15th most of the time the offender and the victim won't finish in the points.

00 XR8 · 13 Dec 2006, 06:13 (Ref:1789572)

I hope you don't mind people using your thread for other suggested improvements to the penalty system AP.

Don't know if it has been mentioned before, but another solution to a jump/roll at start infringement is for an official to hold the car for an extra 5 or 10 seconds or whatever after the compulsory pitstop has been completed. That way the penalty is 5 or 10 seconds rather than the 40 or 50 seconds it takes to do a drive through. A fairer punishment for creeping 1mm before the lights even come on IMO.

Of course the infringement always takes place before the CPS, and assuming every race will have a CPS in it next year.......... it always works.

And yes as pwr alludes to, if the final round of 2006 used the 2007 points system, Craig would have been champion................

Raglanparade · 13 Dec 2006, 08:22 (Ref:1789616)

I think that drivers should get bonus points for getting clean sweep of a Round.

Each round has 100 bonus points up for grabs.

If you win all three races, then you get the bonus.

With the races with two races, if you win both races then you get the bonus.

With Bathurst and Sandown, if you get Pole, and win the race, then you get the bonus.

peckstar · 13 Dec 2006, 09:19 (Ref:1789653)

just let me check Raglanparade, you think a driver should get the 72 points total for winning the three races in the round and then a bonus 100, is that a bit extreme?

I have often thought that a drive through does not necessaryily fir the crime. take a driver who punts some one off on the first corner, they get a drive through and complete it and then a safety car comes out, they have good speed and are no longer 45 seconds behind, so they blaze through the field.

Another time therr is no safety car and the driver continues to remain that 45 seconds behind, because it is too much to catch up

its the same crime, but as a result of a race there is a different penalty

Raglanparade · 13 Dec 2006, 09:22 (Ref:1789655)

Sorry, i forgot we had changed points systems... make it a bonus 50

Average Punter · 13 Dec 2006, 11:29 (Ref:1789763)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 00 XR8

I hope you don't mind people using your thread for other suggested improvements to the penalty system AP.

Maybe there should be a penalty for that?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Solution F was testing????????	nsxr	Sportscar & GT Racing	7	13 Mar 2006 22:15
...and the solution is....	Super Tourer	Formula One	2	23 Sep 2004 15:36
The solution! - a theory...	NiceGuyEddie	Formula One	34	14 May 2004 08:32
The simple solution!	kmchow	Formula One	38	8 Feb 2003 10:43