Marshals/Observers help required

[johnw]

I show below two regs from the blue book.
Could any observers please help us out by explaining how they interpret them. We have our own club regulations aimed at stamping out blocking, weaving, crowding and the like, and have been using the following as a basis. It would be good to get feedback from the professionals.Thanks
John

J 15.4 During a race or practice, a car alone on the track may use the full width of the track. However, as soon as it is caught up by a car which is either temporarily or constantly faster, the driver shall give the other vehicle the right of way by pulling to one side in order to allow for passing on the other side.

J 15.4.2 Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers such as premature direction changes on the straights, crowding of cars towards the inside or outside of the curve or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited and will be subject to penalties ranging from a fine to exclusion from the race. The repetition of such driving, even involuntary, may result in exclusion.

[Chigley]

Cor, what a Pandora's box this could open! I think I'll pass and let the answers come from my more learned colleagues.
I'm not sitting on the fence but the interpretion of this and its technicalities leaves me as a comparitive rookie.

[johnw]

Hi Chigley
I suppose that I assumed that you guys and girls on the bank were observing on the basis of these blue book rules. Maybe this isn't so?
Look forward to a good response on this, as it's causing us some headaches.
John

[Flagman]

If we had applied the second rule some of the races at Donington yesterday we could have excluded almost all of the grid - or made a fortune from the fines.

[Sheila M]

Don't suppose you've thought to consult a Clerk of the Course for interpretation of this?

[James Elder]

From reading it, this seemed pretty straightforward until I read "The repetition of such driving, even involuntary, may result in exclusion" - concerning blocking-type manouvres.

It's really the involuntary bit of this that I am concerned about. In all championships the drivers have differing amounts of experience and knowledge of each other - and that fact can result in involuntary action.

[Piglet]

Would I be right in thinking the situation is that an observor will "report what he sees" and will leave the interpretation to the clerk?

I would imagine it's something that is very difficult to define as it's likely that each situation is different t and presumably an experienced observor will report something on one occasion and on on another s/he may let something similar go because the situation was different (if that makes sense?).

[garybirch]

Well as a lowly course marshal I'm glad I don't have to call it!
As Piglet says, we only report what we see anyway and leave it to the clerks of the course to sort it out!

[Stuart Hill]

[I]

[johnw]

Sheila
Ref Clerks of the Course. Yes many times, but I'm given to understand that they are powerless to act (and probably see what's going on) without observers reports. Hence my question to those of you who are observing.

My question really was about whether you (all) are asked to observe within the framework of regs J.15 and if so, do you follow the letter of the regs or interpret them.

Flagman Thanks for your response.

Originally posted by Flagman
If we had applied the second rule some of the races at Donington yesterday we could have excluded almost all of the grid - or made a fortune from the fines.

THe "IF" is exactly my point. Who decides whether the rule is applied or not? If it's discretionary, it makes it hard to police effectively.
John

[Stuart Hill]

from an 18yr veteran of the bank, but NOT an Observer.

from my experiences of other observers calls, there only seem to be two instances where this might apply. There may be more but I have never personally witnessed them.

1) The movements of a driver cause an avoidable accident:
2) The "weaving" is excessive and could have caused an accident.

Either of these instances, IMHO, would warrant a report but it would obviously be up to the Clerk to determine the (if any) penalty.

Like so much of the Blue Book, this is entirely open to interpretation and the views of the Clerk and/or Observer of the day. I know this doesn't solve your problem John, it's just my opinion. Hopefully someone from higher up the marshalling tree will respond for you.

[Stuart Hill]

Originally posted by johnw
THe "IF" is exactly my point. Who decides whether the rule is applied or not? If it's discretionary, it makes it hard to police effectively.
John

A lot of this depends on the meeting john. You are reading the regs whilst expecting experienced Observers to be on post. Unfortunately this is not always the case. The falling numbers of marshals is all too often creating the scenario whereby the Flag Marshal (singular!!) is being asked to also be the Observer although that person has never attended an Observer's training session. (this happened to me at Donington so I know it to be true.)
So what does that person do?? concentrate on observing or flagging? Which is more important?
In my case it was the flagging duties, had to be to maintain safety. Unless something obvious happened in front of me, and I was able to follow the incident with my eyes, and ignore my flag trainig, then i would be able to report it. Otherwise, well no cars went off so I do nothing. Not perfect I know but the best I could do at the time.

[johnw]

Crazystu
Thanks for the input. Hadn't realised that observers were not part of the post team. In the situation you describe I absolutely agree that the flagging must have priority.

Please don't think that I am looking for perfection. We have employed our own Driving Standards Advisors to help police our championship, but they cannot be everywhere and therefore have been relying on video evidence and observers reports where available.

A question arose about the implementation of the blue book rules and whether we were being consistent in their application.

1) The movements of a driver cause an avoidable accident:
2) The "weaving" is excessive and could have caused an accident.


I like these points you made and they fit in with our DSA's views of what is an offence.
John

[JimW]

John

An interesting thread and I suspect that you will only get very unsatisfactory (to you) answers. I'm feeling brave this evening so here is my twopennorth taken from about 25 years of observing.

J 15.4 - Move over when a faster car is behind. This is a dead letter. Many decent drivers do this if they are being lapped, hardly anyone else does. As an observer I cannot recall ever having made a report based on this, except perhaps in a couple of cases where the behaviour of the driver being overtaken amounted to dangerous driving. The attitude from drivers who are not being lapped is "if you are quicker than me - get past me" and I personally have some sympathy with this. Provided the driver takes what I would call a consistent line and does not make moves which I judge to be directed only to blocking the driver behind, I leave matters alone. But who am I to know what moves are correct driver ones, you may fairly ask. I have never raced a car so lack that viewpoint.

J 15.4.2 Blocking or crowding. I will report this if I think it is unfair or, more obviously, dangerous.

The chances of any report which I may make being acted on range from nil to modest depending on the CoC who is receiving them. Of course, if either has resulted in contact or a car flying into the wilderness, then my report is more likely to be acted on.

Given:

A. That there are often only a few good and experienced observers (and the two are not necessarily the same) round the circuit.

B. That we cannot always be looking at everything

C. That there is a natural tendency to hold back and see if they do it next lap.

D. That we get bored with Clerks who will barely act on the most blatent breaches of the rules and so stop wasting our time making reports which we guess will not attract at least serious consideration.

E. That I think that J 15.4 needs consideration as to whether it is "correct".

this may explain why there are fewer reports than you might sometimes wish.

Look at the Seat races this season. In my view they should have been stopped and told that the general driving standards were such that they would not be permitted to continue. But then they might only retort that if it is good enough for the BTCC it is good enough for them. And organisers might say "but there is good money going into the sport this way and the crowds like it". Try arguing against that!

John I guess that your series wants to establish a better standard of behaviour and many of us would support you in this. (Oops, I don't mean that we think that your colleagues are bad about this. - Resolves to stop digging.) I don't know if you have a regular Clerk for your races? I have reservations about this but one of the possible benefits is more detailed knowledge in Race Control of what the series is trying to do (and incidentally what they will support the Clerks in trying to do). But you have to be careful that having regular senior officials does not lead to witch hunts and action which is unfair. And No, I won't say which series I am expressing an opinion about!

On balance I would suggest a regular Clerk but not Series Stewards with anything to do with the conduct of the meeting (as opposed to championship and elegibility matters.)

As a different matter: Observers are not only part of the post team but the leader of that team. Their activity tends to focus on post management and incident/activity reporting but they can and do direct and take part in any of the other activities going on if it is appropriate. The fewer the bodies on post, the more likely the observer will need to support, act and intervene. Correspondingly the less likely they are to be able to spend much time on driver standards. Sometime flag marshals see more and can assist the observer with reports. (But they are almost always the reports of the observer with a "witness" name.)

Regards

Jim

[Chigley]

Well said Jim from my point of view that exactly answers the topic. Life isn't perfect but we do our damnest to make it so.

[johnw]

Jim
Thanks for a comprehensive review, and for taking the brave pills. I wasn’t just looking for satisfactory answers, just trying to clear up misunderstandings we have.
I agree that J.15.4 is strangely worded and probably not much use. My take on it, is that if the lead driver makes a cock up, misses a gear, outbrakes himself, misses the apex etc, he should not be permitted to keep the approaching driver behind by blocking, weaving or any other foul means. Otherwise, I agree that it is the overtakers responsibility to use some racecraft to pass.
BTW I don’t have any problem with you not having raced a car, it doesn’t negate your feedback and 25 years of observing experience has far more value than a few laps racing.

Interesting to learn your view of how your reports are valued and acted (or rather not acted) upon. It was this lack of action that led us to appoint our own Driving Standards people. You are correct in that we wanted to improve driver behaviour and reduce the amount of needless damage. One of the biggest problems is that the manufacturer supported series have turned into contact sport. I understand that this pleases the crowds and that effectively the costs are underwritten by the sponsors. The trouble is that the costs involved in driving this way are not sustainable in club racing.

I cannot find the words “non-contact” in the blue book any more, so the first sentence of our club rules state that the KUMHO BMW Championship is a non-contact sport. We believe that racing can be competitive and ever closer if we all drive to an agreed standard. It means that we are able to trust each other not to do the sort of stuff which would mean keeping a good distance in order to prevent damage to the cars. We penalise offenders with a yellow and red card system which can lead to suspension from the club and thereby an inability to race (in our series). It has proven far more effective than fines or points on race licences, as it stops theoffenders from competing with us.

I am delighted to report that we have had total back up from the BARC in this and standards have measurably improved. We don’t have a regular Clerk, but frequently have one of a pair. This has proved valuable in that they know what we are trying to achieve and help us to do it.

Thanks to the replies on this thread, I now better understand the issues affecting the observers role and ability to do the job, and along with your points A-E can understand why there are times when we expect a report and don’t get one. To Chigley’s point, we are not expecting perfection, but hope that together we can get to a point where you will see that your observations are used to improve our standards, and that we welcome the feedback.

Many thanks Jim

John

[JimW]

Thanks John

if the lead driver makes a cock up, misses a gear, outbrakes himself, misses the apex etc, he should not be permitted to keep the approaching driver behind by blocking, weaving or any other foul means.

Entirely agree but if I reported this I think I would be assuming that the Clerks might consider using J 15.4.2 Blocking or crowding. rather than J 15.4 - Move over when a faster car is behind..

Here again F1 is having a negative effect and all sorts of people will defend one blocking manoeuvre as legitimate.

Regards

Jim

[blackx]

Ok here goes..................

Maybe I'm missing the point or my ideas and notions are just so far out of this world that they are not worth the space they take up but.................

IMHO if a driver is in the lead then obviously others will want to pass him.....or it would be a pretty boring race really.....No comments on specific race series please....

I think he should be able to use any means at his disposal to defend that place.......As long as they are not dangerous or involve swerving from one side of the track to the other kind of thing.....

If driver in the lead is only there as a fluke then it stands a good chance that the guys/gals behind are gonna find a way past.......


As seen so often in BTCC and Nascar a gentle rub on the rear bumper or similar can assist in this and very rarely does it result in an accident......And when it does then I am sure our Obs will have a report penned before the dust has settled....

I am not a circuit observer so cannot comment on what is right or wrong but am just giving my twopennorth......I know I know thats about all its worth........

[Dutch chap]

As seen so often in BTCC and Nascar a gentle rub on the rear bumper or similar can assist in this and very rarely does it result in an accident......And when it does then I am sure our Obs will have a report penned before the dust has settled....

This is not the kind of racing I like to see. I may be getting old or so, but I think racing is not a contact sport and as far as I remember (I’m definitely getting old) I’ve seen very good racing in the past while there was no contact at all. I mean in the sense that 2 drivers fighting each other for the lead and having several lead changes every lap without making contact.
But of course, there were no Clio’s in those days…

Do you mean that if a driver can keep his car on the track after being bumped on the back or the side it’s OK to bump him, but if he goes of there is a reason to make a report? So it all depends on the skill of the “victim”? Not the way I see it!

[blackx]

erm................
not what i meant at all dutch chap.........
i was likening it to the kind of edge of the seat racing we USED to get in the BTCC.............when Mat Neal won a race outright as a privateer for instance..........
He was seen to make slight contact at Macleans corner @ Donny and the leader at the time.........cant remember who it was off hand.............went into a bit of a slide..........instead of taking the lead Mat held back and let the leader regain his position and continued racing.......I believe Paul Radisich also made a similar move @ The Melbourne Loop a couple of years previous.....
That is more akin to what I was talking about..........Not the kind of argy bargy that is seen in some race series nowadays............

[johnw]

Motor racing is either contact or non-contact. I have always believed that the latter took place at tracks like Wimbledon, Norwich, Aldershot and the like - and that it should stay there.

The BTCC and other well funded series have obviously moved to an acceptance of contact over the past few years and from the distinct lack of action taken by the authorities it is condoned on the basis of entertainment. Fine if that is what the competitors want.

However, I think that a clear distinction is required between this and club racing, where unbudgeted costs are the killer in terms of ability to complete a full season.

I cannot disagree more with you about contact blackx, as racing closely without contact is (for me) skill, whereas driving into people is just **** driving.

Contact plays into the hands of those with bigger budgets at the expense of those with (usually fixed)smaller ones. The consequence of allowing contact, is that you lose the more impecunious racers and end up with ever smaller grids.

Contact also carries the consequence of potential injury. One person's "gentle rub" is another's out of control tailgate. It needs to be black or white.

[JimW]

Originally posted by blackx

. . .

I think he should be able to use any means at his disposal to defend that place.......As long as they are not dangerous or involve swerving from one side of the track to the other kind of thing.....

As seen so often in BTCC and Nascar a gentle rub on the rear bumper or similar can assist in this and very rarely does it result in an accident.

I think that contact should always be reported and, except where unavoidable, result in enquiry/penalty. Yes there are "racing accidents" but the sort of racing which regards a deliberate touch or bump (never mind more serious contact) as legitimate does not seem to me to be what we should be promoting.

However as for changing the chosen line so as to obstruct someone behind, I agree that the issue is a bit more complex.

There are lots of different ways through many corners and many of those are defensible. For a good example look at any tight chicane, e.g. Goddards at Donington. The quickest line through there (at least lots of good drivers take it, so I assume it is the quickest ) seems to mean keeping over to the left and apexing late to go straight across to the second apex and then going wide on the exit.

But if a driver follows that line with a competitor close behind, it leaves the inside line open. So many leaders take a slower line over to their right which forces their competitor to stay behind or go a longer route round to the left.

That's a bit long winded but I wanted to describe the position so that I could suggest that this is legitimate even though you could say that the driver in front was taking a line whose purpose was to block the driver behind.

It is this sort of distinction which makes deciding what should be reported and what should not rather difficult and many of us thus tend to err on the side of letting them get on with it.

Regards

Jim

[johnw]

Agreed Jim,
A defensive line is fine and indeed part of the tactics that should be employed. I guess where I would see it as a problem, is if the move to the defensive line was made at a time which caused the following driver to have to take avoiding action.
Also agree that all contact should be reported as this would show a pattern of behaviour. I do though have a problem with the "car xx and car xx touched and continued" report as it tells us nothing useful. Something more akin to "car xx ran into the back/side/front of car xx which had locked it's front wheels" would at least allow us to speak to the drivers involved with a bit more insight.

[Woolley]

My thoughts on the defensive line is not the one applied generally and certainly not in F1. Logically, I think it should be this.

You may move onto a line which is not the normal line at any time providing it doesn't cause another competitor to take avoiding action. In other words, if he is wholly behind (ie not the Schumi swerve as practiced on Alonso when he was already alongside.) You may not subsequently change back to the normal line as this is effectively blocking. If you want to defend the slower inside line, do it in plenty of time and stick with it.

Secondly, if a competitor is partly alongside going into a corner, he is probably fully committed to his braking and as close to the grass or wall as he can get, so he will be unable to take further avoiding action. If you subsequently take the racing line because it is 'your corner because he wasn't fully alongside' then you are going to collide, and the car in front will nearly always come off worst. So the leading driver should leave a car's width between himself and the inside curb until such time as he is fully ahead again.

My solution to this would be to fit some of those Ben Hur wheel hubs...

[johnw]

Wooley
Excellent definition of the defensive line which I think that we shall use.

Interesting approach to the dive up the inside. Leaving some room is a good idea and would probably compromise both drivers exit speeds equally. I would also make the point that if you are the following driver and you are not fully alongside, you may not have been seen (or be ignored) and the lead driver may take his normal line. It might be as well to accept that at this point it is the other guys corner. Be prepared to back off and try again.


Tried the DT catalogue but no sign of the Ben Hur hubs.
John