Rules Clarification

[chuck baader]

I will apologize in advance should this have been covered before, but my search did not find anything. I want to request a rules clarification: does this go to the CRB? or where within SCCA? Thanks, Chuck

[Dave Gomberg]

Send your request to [email protected] and try to be precise about what you are seeking clarification. If you don't think the answer you get is satisfactory, there is a procedure available for getting an official ruling through the equivalent of a protest and appeal - see GCR 8.1.4 (modified in the January Fastrack)

To obtain a determination on the legality of a vehicle or component, without filing a formal protest, a competitor may request such a ruling from the Club Racing Office. The Chairman of the Stewards Program will then convene a first court. The protest and appeal procedures described in sections 8.3 and 8.4 apply except that penalties or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling. Also, a non-compliant ruling will be published; a compliant ruling will not be published.
The fee for this service is $125 for the first court and $175 for the Appeals Court.

Dave

[chuck baader]

Excellent...just what I was looking for:026:Chuck

[Knestis]

This process comes with some caveats...

1. Those informal opinions that are sometimes issued carry no weight. "The Club Racing office told me that..." will carry no weight in the protest process, should you ever find yourself there.

2. Notice that, for the formal process "a non-compliant ruling will be published; a compliant ruling will not be published." That prevents you from invoking a decision that your interpretation is OK based on any precedent, since none will be published if your idea passes muster.

I PERSONALLY think you are better off enlisting your local tech/compliance folks for an informal opinion. They're the ones you'll have to deal with in the event of a protest. If they are OK with your interpretation, that's just about as much practical butt coverage as we can get.

K

[Dave Gomberg]

Kurt:

You are drawing the wrong conclusion about a compliant ruling. If the CoA issues such a ruling, the person who asked for the ruling gets a letter from the CoA to that effect and it can be used to defend oneself against a protest. Until that time, there is no public record.

In the case of CRB opinions, you are correct that such an answer may not be relied upon absolutely (that's why it is called an opinion), however, if the question is such that the CRB believes that a clarification to an existing rule/specification is needed, that would be published for everyone's benefit.

Dave

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why wouldn't they publish both the compliant AND non-compliant results? Wouldn't thins go a long way toward helping people know 'what flies' and what doesn't?

[Dave Gomberg]

Why wouldn't they publish both the compliant AND non-compliant results? Wouldn't this go a long way toward helping people know 'what flies' and what doesn't?
To protect the guy who finds a compliant "hot lick". He is, in some, sense smarter than the average bear and has figured out a way, within the rules, to get an advantage. Why should he have to tell everyone else how to catch up? Of course, this doesn't hold in true spec classes - there you must run what everyone else runs.

Dave

[Knestis]

That is VERY different than how I heard it works. How does that jive with the general position that CoA findings are not precedential?

K

[Dave Gomberg]

Kurt:

For one thing, CoA rulings do set precedent in the year in which the ruling is made (if it didn't, the CoA might see the same issue come to them multiple times). However, if the GCR is not changed in the following year to reflect the ruling, the precedent "expires".

In general, when the CoA encounters a situation that they believe requires a change to the GCR to restore sanity/equity/etc., they will make a request to the CRB to consider specific rules changes. (Like anyone else, they may or may not get what they ask.) The specific cases that arise from application of 8.1.4, might (in the case of a negative ruling) cause the CoA to ask for a change. Where there is a positive ruling, I believe the letter is conditioned on application of rules/specifications in effect at the time of the ruling.

Dave

[Andy Bettencourt]

To protect the guy who finds a compliant "hot lick". He is, in some, sense smarter than the average bear and has figured out a way, within the rules, to get an advantage. Why should he have to tell everyone else how to catch up? Of course, this doesn't hold in true spec classes - there you must run what everyone else runs.

Dave
Ahhh yes. Not my usual line of thinking but certainly valid.