SCCA abandons governance by rules

[Taylor R]

Officials for the June ECR in Homestead decided last week to change the rules of the race. This change in the rules alters the finishing position of several cars and effects series points totals. See attached copy of old rule & new rule.





There is no way to be more unfair than to change the rules to the race after the race has been run. If officials are allowed to take actions such as this the club no longer has any rules. In my opinion, any official that shows such disrespect for the rules should no longer be an official.

Can you imagine the NFL changing the rules to the Super Bowl 4 months after it was played to only use 20 minute halves and recalculating the score?

[JoshS]

It's not the SCCA that changed those rules. If you're upset, at least direct your anger at the right party.

[Super Swift]

I am not to sure what you mean, Josh. The ECR committee is part of the SCCA. They might not be part of the national scope with the rules they produce but their choice and apparent ability to retroactively change rules should be a cause of great alarm.

[JoshS]

I guess I'm just taking exception to the very alarmist title of this post.

Just because some local people in the southeast, running a series that the SCCA national program doesn't even specify, made a bad decision does not paint the alarmist picture that the subject line paints.

This was a bad decision by some local volunteers. It doesn't mean that the rest of the club is falling apart.

BTW, the rule quoted makes it sound like this was the response to a protest -- is it possible that the results of that race weren't official yet?

[JohnRW]

More specific question:

Were the actual race results changed, or was the change related to ECS-specific points-paying results ?

ECS and their rules are an ancillilary freak show at a race weekend. They can screw around with their own rules and points-count all they want. Actual race results can only be changed if certain specific GCR-mandated steps are followed. ECS Committee cannot unilaterally change "race results". Only by specific action of the Chairman of the Stewards/Stewards of the Meet can "race results" be changed after the event. There will be a paper trail if this was done. It may have followed a protest, and that protest may have challenged ambiguity or other sillyness in the ECS Supps regarding pit stops. If "race results" were changed and this process wasn't followed, then you have a major issue.

Sounds like ECS needs some people on their committee who actually know how to write enduro Supps and rules. Having to fix it after the fact is a pretty piss-poor showing.

If I've offended anyone, I've probably meant to do it.

[Molez93]

> If I've offended anyone, I've probably meant to do it.

John: I no longer have *any* doubt that you are an 80 year old curmudgeon in a younger man's clothes. :P

[GKR_17]

As shown in the rules above, the ECR series requires a mandatory pit stop, which must meet the specified timing requirements. At the June Homestead events, the series administrator decided to change the required timing after the race and not penalize cars in violation of that rule. A protest of that decision was upheld by the chief steward. Rather than obey the protest verdict the administrator took the issue to the ECR committee, who then retroactively rewrote the rule as shown above. The series rules are included in the supps for the event, and cannot be altered after entries are received per GCR 3.5.5. This dubious ruling affects both the results for that event, and the final point standings for the season. This is inexcusable.

Grafton

[planet6racing]

Sounds like you need to protest their actions...

[JohnRW]

The series rules are included in the supps for the event, and cannot be altered after entries are received per GCR 3.5.5. [/b]

Incorrect. Supps can be modified/changed, up to...and even during...the event, by action of the Stewards of the Meet (SOMs).

Really.

[JeffYoung]

Can anyone explain the "why" on this?

I am all for cutting workers and event organizers a ton of leeway in running events. They do it for free, for us, the drivers, and I'm not one to complain about most anything that goes on. But this just doesn't make sense. Why change the rules after the fact?

[Quickshoe]

maybe someone found a loophole in the time in the pits calculations based on where the timing loop was located and didn't spend as much time in the pits as required. Someone else protested them, error in the rules discovered and changed after the fact. Subsequent change in how the time in pits calculated negatively affected others who had spent the required amount of time in the pits.

I've only done two enduros in my years, with different clubs. They both assigned you a time at pit in, and held you at pit out until the time + required pit stop time was reached.

More labor intensive (volunteers) and did present a slight disadvantage when multiple cars arrived at pit in/out at the same time. Part of your strategy, make sure you don't pit when someone else is pitting right in front of you. Get your stop done with enough time to spare to get to pit out 30seconds early so that you can be released on time.

[GKR_17]

Incorrect. Supps can be modified/changed, up to...and even during...the event, by action of the Stewards of the Meet (SOMs).
[/b]

Try again. This was not a safety concern, and wasn't remotely caused by "forces beyond their control".

3.5.5. Changes To The Supplementary Regulations
No changes shall be made to the Supplementary Regulations, except for the schedule and/or class groupings, after the beginning of the period for receiving entries unless unanimous agreement is given by all affected competitors already entered, or the Stewards of the Meeting so decide for reasons of safety or forces beyond their control. All schedule changes shall be approved by the SOM. (See 5.12.1.A., Powers of the SOM.)

5.12.1.A gives the SOM the power the change the supps, but they must comply with 3.5.5.

[JohnRW]

Try again. This was not a safety concern, and wasn't remotely caused by "forces beyond their control".
[/b]

You have a very narrow definition of "forces beyond their control". If there was an "error" or "omission" in the Supps or original rules for the enduro, the "forces beyond their control" (a literal reading) can empower the SOMs to act. And, since there was a protest involved, they do have full authority to render a decision on that protest.

Not defending what went on with ECR...far from it...but in actuality, the SOMs have pretty broad powers of "correction".

My original question is still unanswered - Did the actual race results get changed, or did they just change points-payouts for ECR due to the screw-up in Supps language ?

[GKR_17]

As I sated above, this rule change does affect the finishing order for both events in question. That change in finishing order affects the distribution of points from those two events, which ultimately changes the final standings for the season. There is a prize fund to be distributed based on the final standings.

I think you're taking a far too broad view of "forces beyond their control". The rule in question has been on the books for several years. The fact is several cars violated that rule and were not penalized as required.

I should also point out that in this case it was not the SOM's that made the rule change, it was the ECR committee. They are given no authority to change the supps. They can change the rules for future events, but can make no changes after those rules are included in the supps for any specific event.

Furthermore, as you're aware, there was a protest. Per series guidelines, that protest was reviewed by the Operating Steward. That protest was upheld, requiring the violators to be penalized. It was after that verdict that the committee rewrote the rule.

[JohnRW]

Per series guidelines, that protest was reviewed by the Operating Steward. That protest was upheld, requiring the violators to be penalized. It was after that verdict that the committee rewrote the rule.
[/b]

OK...I'm more confused now. Was it an "official" SCCA protest, following "official" SCCA procedures ? If so, the Operating Steward has nothing to do with it. He might get handed a Protest form, but all he does then is notify T&S to hold results and hand the protest to the Chairman of the SOMs, who are responsible for adjudicating it. Operating Steward...or Chief Steward...doesn't get to decide this one.

Not trying to quibble...just trying to follow the bouncing ball on this one. Sounds like a bunch of people wandered off the reservation while handling this issue.

(Why am I curious ? On my license, right below "Nat. Competition", it also says "Steward", and some of the actions described in this don't fit any procedures that I know of)

[GKR_17]

I completely agree that this procedure is quite convoluted. In any normal circumstance, a protest is filed with the Chief Steward, who then forwards it to the SOM's for a ruling. A different procedure for pit-stop timing is listed in the ECR rules as follows:

ECR Guideline 5.5:
Provisional race results shall be posted at each ECR event within 30 minutes of the race. Audited Provisional Race Results (verification of the required 5 minute pit stops) will be posted on the Internet at www.sedivracing.org. Each ECR competitor/entrant listed on results, has 10 days from the date results are posted to file a protest with the Series Administrator, (for pit stop timing infractions only) who will in turn ask for verification of results through the Series Timing and Scoring person. The decision of the Series Administrator may be protested to the Operating Steward. The competitor shall provide evidence to uphold protest. At the end of the ten day period, points will be posted to the website.

The full series rules can be found at: www.sedivecr.com

To summarize the events in question:
1. The series administrator decided to use 7.5 seconds as the pit traverse time instead of the published 15 seconds, this decision was not announced at the track.
2. The audited provisional results were protested to the administrator for not penalizing all cars that violated the timing requirements stated in ECR 8.1 and 8.2.
3. The administrator overruled that protest.
4. A protest of that decision was then filed with the Series Operating Steward
5. This protest is upheld by the Operating Steward, and the administrator directed to correct the results using the published 15 second traverse time.
6. The ECR committee retroactively rewrites ECR 8.1 so that no cars will be penalized. (over two months after the event).

The short story is several cars violated ECR 8.1 and must be penalized as required in the rules. To not do so penalizes the majority of entrants who did comply with that rule. As I said in another discussion on this same topic, I don't care what the rule is, but it must be enforced strictly and evenly. Further, it should be obvious that it can't be changed after-the-fact. We don't need officials with so little respect for their own rules. This isn't the first time either, I could start an entirely new discussion on the origin of ECR 7.7, which directly conflicts with GCR 6.7.5. Need I ask if the committee ever bothered to clear that with the national office as required in GCR 3.5.1...

[pgipson]

I'm not in the SE and have never run an enduro, but how is this any different than any other "guest" race. We see these all the time where a group comes in and piggybacks onto an SCCA weekend. SCCA is often not responsible for any of the actual activity. Much like we used to have with Pro SM, and Formula Zetec, the series admins are responsible to their drivers, owners and crew for all rules and penalties. Even for ontrack actions.

Is it any different than V8stockcars, or even a BMWCCA event held with an SCCA race? Those rules are not the province of the SOMs.

[GKR_17]

This isn't a "guest" series. It is a divisional championship, managed by the SEDiv, run by SCCA officials, under SCCA sanction.

[jjjanos]

Is it any different than V8stockcars, or even a BMWCCA event held with an SCCA race? Those rules are not the province of the SOMs.
[/b]

If it runs under an SCCA sanction, then the SCCA judicial process applies, period. If the other group is not running under an SCCA sanction, i.e. not part of the event but simply scheduled on the same day and using their own insurance, then they are not subject.

[JohnRW]

If the race results (not the ECR 'points pay-out&#39 were changed post-race thru these procedures, then it appears to be in direct violation of the GCR stipulated procedures. I did look thru the ECR rules, and it gives a lot of latitude to the Series Operating Steward (or whatever they call it), but did/does not specifically empower ECR staff/committees/Stewards to change race results outside of the processes that are defined in the GCR.

Somebody probably needs to bring this to the attention of the VP Club Racing and the Nat'l Admin. of Stewards.

But it's your ballpark down there in the south...