Research into "Case Law"

[toddgreene]

We all read the rules and have our own interpretation of the gray areas.
In order to research rules, is there a source or compilation of previous protests and whether the protest was upheld or overruled.

I'm not looking for flagrant violations, safety violations or outright cheating, but decisions involving what might be a "minor violation" of a rule that is not clear (ie: speaker wire removal, washer bottles, steering adapters, glove boxes, horns, etc)

Has anyone out there been protested for some of these? If so, what was the outcome?

Thanks,

Todd

[RSTPerformance]

R\Todd-

No official records in one place for any members be it drivers, crew/builders, stewards or any other officials. I would like to see that change, but good luck on your search.

Raymond

[bldn10]

Wow, Todd, thanks for lobbing that softball my way! Now I get to say ...

There is NO case law in SCCA! No SOM or COA decision is precedential in any other protest; every protest is de novo or new. I have seen what appeared to be inconsistent rulings even in the same issue of Fastrack. Yes, if COA opinions were archived, searchable, and precedential we could over time establish a body of "law" that IMO would lead to better understanding of the rules across the board and and more uniformity in interpretation and implementation of them. And possibly, fewer protests.

[charrbq]

Amen, Bill! White man speak of great truths! I've personally never had it go beyond a tech inspectors opinion, but I've seen cases of items okayed in one race, ruled illegal in other races due to inconsistances in steward's interpretations.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Amen, Bill! White man speak of great truths! I've personally never had it go beyond a tech inspectors opinion, but I've seen cases of items okayed in one race, ruled illegal in other races due to inconsistances in steward's interpretations. [/b]

So what is the solution? If you 'log' all the decisions, do they then become 'law'? What if its an interpretation that is out of whack? Do we have to have Topeka review each protest and rule in finality to establish such law? It ain't as easy as just logging the data...you have to call the data something.

[toddgreene]

Some type of reporting, classifying and storing the protests and results would definitely help in creating a "standard".

I am in the process of building my first IT car. I am building it to my and helpful others' interpretation of the GCR. While I don't intend to cheat, I'll admit that there are things like parts of the wiring harness, speakers and wires and probably some brackets that have been removed which are "gray" areas of the GCR. I don't expect to win a race right away, but I don't won't to risk getting DQ'd if all other competitors happen to DNF. :D

What adds to the confusion is an ad I saw in a older GR Motorsports Magazine. It was congratulating either the SAARC or AARC ITC Champ. The photo of the car showed that the headlights and marker lights had been removed and replaced with what appearred to be aluminum sheeting.

First of all, I am not accusing anyone of any wrongdoing. I think that is a safe and appropriate modification.
However, a strict interpretation of the GCR appears to disallow this. While this is confusing to a "newbie" like myself, I am relieved to see that a car can reach a championship level without any "weenie" protests.

Todd

[Bill Miller]

Wow, Todd, thanks for lobbing that softball my way! Now I get to say ...

There is NO case law in SCCA! No SOM or COA decision is precedential in any other protest; every protest is de novo or new. I have seen what appeared to be inconsistent rulings even in the same issue of Fastrack. Yes, if COA opinions were archived, searchable, and precedential we could over time establish a body of "law" that IMO would lead to better understanding of the rules across the board and and more uniformity in interpretation and implementation of them. And possibly, fewer protests.
[/b]

Not sure if that's entirely true Bill. I believe COA rulings hold precedent until the following year. If the rules aren't changed to reflect the ruling, it's as if the ruling never was issued and you have to start over. If they hold no precedent at all, there would be no point in paying the $250 to have an official rule interpretation.

[bldn10]

"I believe COA rulings hold precedent until the following year. If the rules aren't changed to reflect the ruling, it's as if the ruling never was issued and you have to start over. If they hold no precedent at all, there would be no point in paying the $250 to have an official rule interpretation."

Bill, have you (or anyone here) ever heard of a prior COA opinion being used in a subsequent matter? It may well happen, and I would make use of one too if it supported my case, but there is nothing in the GCR establishing any kind of precedence or, as it is referred to in law, stare decisis. Has anyone ever read a COA opinion that referred to a prior one as precedential? As to the $250 under Rule 8.1.4, it is unclear what the effect of one those really is. I think all it means is that the decision is effective to protect ONLY the person who paid the $250. So, to that extent, it may be considered precedential - but in the larger sense that I am talking about, it is not binding.

There is true precedent that is binding and then there is what lawyers call comity, which simply means that, although a court is not REQUIRED to follow a prior ruling, it may very well out of deference to a prior or sister court. Lawyers will often cite cases from other jurisdictions that are not precedential but are well-reasoned and on point to the extent that the present court says, "we don't HAVE to follow that case but it looks like they got it right, and we adopt their reasoning and conclusion." I would think that any COA would give some weight to a prior ruling on the same or a similar issue but I'm pretty sure they don't have to.

Andy, I would follow the jurisprudential model that exists in courts of law generally in the U.S. "Lower" court opinions are usually not even precedential in their own jursidiction, so local protests might not need to be archived and made precedential. Divisions and maybe even Regions could perhaps be given the option of making local protest decisions precedential in that Division or Region. But my proposal would be start first at the top and make only COA decisions precedential. After a few years when the administrative structure has been refined we could then decide if the new system should be extended down the line.

[Bill Miller]

I think all it means is that the decision is effective to protect ONLY the person who paid the $250. So, to that extent, it may be considered precedential - but in the larger sense that I am talking about, it is not binding.
[/b]

Bill,

I would certainly hope that's not the case. What you've stated is that someone can essentially 'buy' protection on a given issue (provided the CoA rules in their favor). To even suggest that something like this is possible is pretty scary. And if that were the case, why would they publish the negative results? I'll have to pull out the GCR, but IIRC, there is something in their about how long CoA rulings are binding.

[bldn10]

Bill (Miller), yea that's pretty much how I've looked at it - buying protection. Or immunization, if you will. But, if COA opinions are not generally precedential, neither should be these private ones. So that's consistent.

As to the time a COA opinion would be in effect if it was precedential, bear in mind that even a ruling by the Supreme Court interpreting a statute can be "overruled" by Congress simply amending that statute to say what they want it to say. So, if we did have precedent and a COA said, e.g. that spherical bearings do not constitute a mere change in bushing material and are , therefore, illegal [an opinion I would agree w/], that would be the law of SCCA-land only as long as a change [e.g. unrestricted bushing material includes SBs] was not made to the underlying rule that would change the result.

[charrbq]

So what is the solution? If you 'log' all the decisions, do they then become 'law'? What if its an interpretation that is out of whack? Do we have to have Topeka review each protest and rule in finality to establish such law? It ain't as easy as just logging the data...you have to call the data something.
[/b]
Andy,
Instead of wasting your time attacking me for agreeing with what Bill has proposed, take the time to study what he proposes. It would put a standard and a precedence to rules decisions that woulld enable stewards to perform their tasks with some continuity rather than penciling the rules interpretations as some other people have.