[VASC16R25] SuperCheap Auto Bathurst 1000: 6-9 Oct (WITH POLL)

[old fart]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Is it just me, or is it getting a bit ridiculous when Tekno calls itself, and others call Tekno a "small team"

Story Here

Running a full house 888 chassis, with the latest KRE engines, and 7 full time staff.. and a multinational brand (even if they aren't paying full freight) on the sides..

Which expands to 10 staff for Bathurst...
The Other 10 Bathurst Winners

It's just you ...and maybe a few others who believe 'small' should be a family run/mates helping out scenario of a bygone era. The fact they have good equipment shows sense and the desire to be more than just an 'also ran'.

[Umai Naa]

They're a lot smaller than those around them on pitlane.

[AnEmmoFan]

The Speedcafe article on the appeal quotes the reaction of the Supercars CEO, James Warburton who says the appeal was "un-Australian" and threatens the integrity of the sport. If correct, very disappointed to hear of such a reaction. This whole mess has cast doubt as to the running of the sport , particularly competition governance. The high profile of the Triple 8 team seems to be a negative for them.

[Umai Naa]

It's a big mess alright.

The catagory has a ruleset, and penalties. Catagory applies an unwritten penalty based on a perceived variation of a rule. Allows team to appeal penalty. Appeal goes to CAMS. CAMS throws appeal out on the basis that the appeal process was not adheared to by the catagory.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The catagory has a ruleset, and penalties. Catagory applies an unwritten penalty based on a perceived variation of a rule. Allows team to appeal penalty. Appeal goes to CAMS. CAMS throws appeal out on the basis that the appeal process was not adheared to by the catagory.

That is correct, it is absolutely unjust - it is only fair for an incorrect application of rules and guidelines to be reviewed in the face of a protest but to dismiss it in a complete technicality is poor.

Plus Warburton's comments are utterly contemptible and unprofessional in the extreme. He should be impartial, and anybody can protest - whatever your opinion of the events, an impartial appeal should be sacrosanct, and the sport's figurehead should not be making comments like this.

[Umai Naa]

Agreed. Warburton should not have weighed in on it all, especially as the case had not yet been heard.

[peckstar]

I know in every other sport you can appeal the umpire/ referees decision when a free kick is paid against you... Oh wait, no you cant you just have to suck it up.

Do Red Bull make tissues.

You cant appeal a drive through or a black flag, just like you cant appeal a 15 second penalty.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

You cant appeal a drive through or a black flag, just like you cant appeal a 15 second penalty.

You are just wrong. You can protest a 15 second penalty if you file the protest correctly in the hour alotted.

Also: football now has video reviews... Do we really want that in motorsports?

[ford71]

I thought they already used video footage to make decisions

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Mixer

You are just wrong. You can protest a 15 second penalty if you file the protest correctly in the hour alotted.

Also: football now has video reviews... Do we really want that in motorsports?

No you cant, that appears to be what was determined

we already have video reviews in motorsport before they determine penalties. So yes we do

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by ford71

I thought they already used video footage to make decisions

Not where everything stops...

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

No you cant, that appears to be what was determined

Do you even read what went on?

The appeal was not allowed because RBRA protested the wrong thing in their initial appeal and were not allowed to change it mid-stream. If they had protested what they later wished to in the first hour, then it would have been heard.

So a complete technicality.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Do you even read what went on?

The appeal was not allowed because RBRA protested the wrong thing in their initial appeal and were not allowed to change it mid-stream. If they had protested what they later wished to in the first hour, then it would have been heard.

So a complete technicality.

sure i did and its nothing to do with what you just said

"Whincup vented his frustration over the futile nature of the case, given that it was eventually thrown out on the grounds that in-race decisions by stewards cannot be appealed at all."

B5. APPEALS
B5.1 Right of Appeal
5.1.1 The right of appeal against a decision of the Stewards, made as a result of a hearing,
is available to an “appellant" to The V8 Supercars National Court of Appeal (The
Court).

Theer is no comeback against in race decisions, just like in every other sport (video evidence or not)

RBRA who are experts in reading the rules, stuffed up. but as normal they blame everyone else but themselves for the stuff up

[Umai Naa]

The catagory management allowed the appeal process to continue.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by peckstar

"Whincup vented his frustration over the futile nature of the case, given that it was eventually thrown out on the grounds that in-race decisions by stewards cannot be appealed at all."

Red Bull Racing Australia tonight learned that the appeal against the 15-second time penalty for a driving infringement handed to Car 88 at the 2016 Bathurst 1000 cannot be heard by the National Court of Appeal due to a technicality.

As a result of Rule B5.1.1 in the Supercars Operations Manual, the appeal made by the Team against the penalty imposed on Car 88 cannot be presented and the Notice of Intention to Appeal should not have been accepted by the Stewards.

In other words Supercars has used overlapping rules to maintain the status quo.

“The problem is that there’s so many clauses in the rule book that no matter what rules are written, they can be overridden,” Ingall told Speedcafe.com.

“I’ve been caught out by that. No matter how good your case is it can be overridden by another rule.

Just too easy when you just cook the books and do what you like, without consequence.

[Umai Naa]

To think if Whincup had actually won it, no one would still be talking about Bathurst 2016

[ford71]

http://www.speedcafe.com/2016/10/19/...thurst-appeal/

eventually thrown out on the grounds that in-race decisions by stewards cannot be appealed at all.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The catagory has a ruleset, and penalties. Catagory applies an unwritten penalty based on a perceived variation of a rule. Allows team to appeal penalty. Appeal goes to CAMS. CAMS throws appeal out on the basis that the appeal process was not adheared to by the catagory.

You don't have that quite right. There is definitely a ruleset and penalties, some of which are explained in briefings (which have the same effect as written rules, same as other forms of motorsport). Larko made the point in his very good summary on RPM that the use of time penalties rather than points penalties during the Bathurst 1000 was covered in detail and confirmed to the teams at the drivers and team managers briefings, so all the teams knew that.

The CAMS Stewards, not the category, applied the penalties during the race. The CAMS Stewards allowed the team to appeal the penalty. The CAMS appeal court has not said at all that the appeal process was not adhered to by the category - the findings are yet to come out but it appears at this stage that the appeal court is of a view that the CAMS stewards should not have accepted the appeal. We won't REALLY know until the court findings are released.

[Umai Naa]

Are those CAMS stewards acting on behalf of CAMS, or the category?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Are those CAMS stewards acting on behalf of CAMS, or the category?

Why CAMS of course - have you not noticed that every single stewards summary that gets released is on CAMS letterhead and put up on the CAMS site?

Their decisions are made under the series rules of course but you'd expect that.

The whole judicial process is specifically set up to provide independent adjudication, as any such process is normally.

[dirtymacca]

Last year " I have this, no probs with fuel" to the team.

This year... made a mistake.. Immediate redress in the middle of the road (admission of guilt)

Who runs the team?

[Average Punter]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Larko made the point in his very good summary on RPM

I agree that Larko's summary (https://www.facebook.com/rpmonten/) was on the money.

However even he didn't know that the stewards' decision couldn't be appealed...

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The catagory management allowed the appeal process to continue.

As they should, not there job to adjudicate on an appeal. It's appeals board

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Mixer

In other words Supercars has used overlapping rules to maintain the status quo.



Just too easy when you just cook the books and do what you like, without consequence.

Sure, what were the overlapping rules in this case. The appeals process was clear in the rules for anyone who looked it up

As far as i can see the only issue is that we the fans are not aware of the advise in the drivers briefing and this causes us issues

Rules were applied consistantly in this case and T8 stuffed up.

I mean seriously Jamie and the team are trying to claim they redressed when its as clear as day they didnt. Jamie is trying to claim he was in full control of the car when he hit Scott. Clear as day he isnt.

[Terry S]

It seems the stewards should not have allowed an appeal to be lodged about a decision in the race.

So the stewards made the MISTAKE!

Does that mean that 888 get their money back as there should not have been an appeal in the first place?