NASCAR lost a great advocate for the sport when David Poole died on Tuesday. His insight will be sorely missed.
If you have not read his last commentary please go to http://www.thatsracin.com/135/story/7980.html
In it he succinctly states the need to fix Talladega. I hope NASCAR will listen.
It has been very disturbing to hear NASCAR officials, some drivers, and especially the media, such as ESPN Now commentators, downplay the seriousness of what happened at Talladega on Sunday. Looking closely at some of the video of the fence one can see it was very, very close to failing in a way that would have resulted in many more injuries of a serious nature.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Restrictor Plates
NASCAR must find a way to slow the cars at Talladega and Daytona other than restrictor plates. Once again, on Sunday, tragedy was narrowly avoided. Seven people in the stands were treated for injuries. The catch fence held this time. If you watch the replay you can see the angle that Carl Edwards’ car hit the fence was not as direct as it could have been, more like a glancing blow. It’s scary to think what a more direct hit might have done.
Carl’s quote after the race says it all: “NASCAR puts us in this box and we’ll race like this until we kill somebody, then (NASCAR) will change it.” I think Carl was referring to the drivers. Two ‘big ones’ decimated the field and then this one at the finish probably made Carl feel lucky that he could climb out of his car and run to the start/finish line. I wonder if Carl has received a ‘talking to’ from NASCAR about his comment.
There is no doubt that restrictor plate racing was largely responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt Sr. Cars cannot run together at those speeds without making contact. It’s as simple as that. Dale’s death made NASCAR belatedly address safety problems that had been around for years. The introduction of soft wall technology and the use of better restraining devices certainly have reduced driver injuries. But, NASCAR has not addressed the restrictor plate racing problem.
There are two reasons for that. First, there is no simple, cheap solution. If there was, NASCAR might feel compelled to implement it. Second, we fans have liked this close racing far too much. Some of the best attended and most watched racing is at Talladega and Daytona. Are we blood thirsty? Do we dare give critics more ammunition when they say that NASCAR is just a blood sport?
I’m a big believer that ‘rubbing is racing’ in full bodied stock cars. But, contact cannot be made when racing with restrictor plates. I used to hold my breath watching those races, now I just wait to see which of my favorites are going to be knocked out of the race, many times for no fault of their own.
The only reasonable solution put forth so far is to knock down the banking at one end of those two tracks. The idea is that drivers will have to slow down so much for the lowered turns that restrictor plates will not be needed. It will be an expensive solution. International Speedway Corporation (ISC) owns both tracks, and since NASCAR and ISC are, more or less, one in the same, I don’t expect any action unless more fans speak up. I hope NASCAR doesn’t wait for serious blood to be spilled or for more deaths to occur.
Carl’s quote after the race says it all: “NASCAR puts us in this box and we’ll race like this until we kill somebody, then (NASCAR) will change it.” I think Carl was referring to the drivers. Two ‘big ones’ decimated the field and then this one at the finish probably made Carl feel lucky that he could climb out of his car and run to the start/finish line. I wonder if Carl has received a ‘talking to’ from NASCAR about his comment.
There is no doubt that restrictor plate racing was largely responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt Sr. Cars cannot run together at those speeds without making contact. It’s as simple as that. Dale’s death made NASCAR belatedly address safety problems that had been around for years. The introduction of soft wall technology and the use of better restraining devices certainly have reduced driver injuries. But, NASCAR has not addressed the restrictor plate racing problem.
There are two reasons for that. First, there is no simple, cheap solution. If there was, NASCAR might feel compelled to implement it. Second, we fans have liked this close racing far too much. Some of the best attended and most watched racing is at Talladega and Daytona. Are we blood thirsty? Do we dare give critics more ammunition when they say that NASCAR is just a blood sport?
I’m a big believer that ‘rubbing is racing’ in full bodied stock cars. But, contact cannot be made when racing with restrictor plates. I used to hold my breath watching those races, now I just wait to see which of my favorites are going to be knocked out of the race, many times for no fault of their own.
The only reasonable solution put forth so far is to knock down the banking at one end of those two tracks. The idea is that drivers will have to slow down so much for the lowered turns that restrictor plates will not be needed. It will be an expensive solution. International Speedway Corporation (ISC) owns both tracks, and since NASCAR and ISC are, more or less, one in the same, I don’t expect any action unless more fans speak up. I hope NASCAR doesn’t wait for serious blood to be spilled or for more deaths to occur.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Race Referees
How many times have fans questioned a call that NASCAR officials have made during a race? We frequently accuse NASCAR of favoritism. Dale Earnhardt Jr., Jeff Gordon, Jimmy Johnson and others all have at one time or another seemed to get preferential treatment by a NASCAR decision.
I don’t believe that NASCAR officials do, in fact, give preferential treatment to any driver or team. But, appearances are everything. I can certainly understand some fans wondering if NASCAR sometimes makes a call that is not objective. NASCAR has always wanted to “legitimatize” their sport. Fans need to see that any hint of bias or favoritism does not exist.
I’m not sure who the NASCAR decision makers are during a Cup race. I believe it consists mainly of NASCAR President Mike Helton, Sprint Cup Series Director John Darby, and Vice President of Competition Robin Pemberton. I don’t believe these men have an agenda that leads them to make calls during the race that may favor certain drivers, but it seems odd that the executives of the series are also the ones refereeing it. It’s kind of like having Bud Selig calling balls and strikes in MLB or David Stern calling fouls in the NBA.
NASCAR needs to have “race referees” - a small group (3?) of people that will make all calls during a race. These people cannot have any hint of bias. They cannot be affiliated with NASCAR in any other way. They cannot be affiliated with track ownership companies such as International Speedway Corporation or Speedway Motorsports Incorporated. The group working a race can be drawn from a larger group on a rotating basis much like other professional sports.
This group will have at their disposal all the scoring and monitoring facilities in place now. They will be in direct communication with pit road inspectors as is done now. It will be their call whether a piece of debris demands a caution, whether a rough driving incident has occurred, whether a pit road speeding violation has occurred, whether a pit crew member has committed an infraction, etc. As importantly, they will decide the penalty.
For NASCAR to move into the “major leagues” of professional sports they must remove any appearance of bias and favoritism. “Race referees” will do that.
I don’t believe that NASCAR officials do, in fact, give preferential treatment to any driver or team. But, appearances are everything. I can certainly understand some fans wondering if NASCAR sometimes makes a call that is not objective. NASCAR has always wanted to “legitimatize” their sport. Fans need to see that any hint of bias or favoritism does not exist.
I’m not sure who the NASCAR decision makers are during a Cup race. I believe it consists mainly of NASCAR President Mike Helton, Sprint Cup Series Director John Darby, and Vice President of Competition Robin Pemberton. I don’t believe these men have an agenda that leads them to make calls during the race that may favor certain drivers, but it seems odd that the executives of the series are also the ones refereeing it. It’s kind of like having Bud Selig calling balls and strikes in MLB or David Stern calling fouls in the NBA.
NASCAR needs to have “race referees” - a small group (3?) of people that will make all calls during a race. These people cannot have any hint of bias. They cannot be affiliated with NASCAR in any other way. They cannot be affiliated with track ownership companies such as International Speedway Corporation or Speedway Motorsports Incorporated. The group working a race can be drawn from a larger group on a rotating basis much like other professional sports.
This group will have at their disposal all the scoring and monitoring facilities in place now. They will be in direct communication with pit road inspectors as is done now. It will be their call whether a piece of debris demands a caution, whether a rough driving incident has occurred, whether a pit road speeding violation has occurred, whether a pit crew member has committed an infraction, etc. As importantly, they will decide the penalty.
For NASCAR to move into the “major leagues” of professional sports they must remove any appearance of bias and favoritism. “Race referees” will do that.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
NASCAR Lucky Dog Rule
I've been concerned about the "Lucky Dog" rule since its inception.
I understand why NASCAR felt the need to change what was happening when the caution flag flew. Cars a lap down who were in sight of the leader would try desperately to get their lap back, and the leader usually obliged them by slowing down and letting them pass before they reached the start/finish line. Though nothing serious ever happened, NASCAR was justifiably worried that there would be a monumental wreck caused by an over zealous driver trying to get to the leader before he took the yellow flag. I remember one particularly scary incident where a car was sitting wrecked and stalled just short of the start/finish line. No contact was made, but NASCAR felt compelled to act.
But, what NASCAR came up with, is not right from a fan's perspective. It is contrived. It is controlling a show rather than administering a race. How many times have we seen the winner of the "Lucky Dog" half a lap behind the leader! Is it correct to allow that driver to be given his lap back? It's too much of a gift.
As much as I hate to allow NASCAR to make judgement calls this is a place where it is necessary. NASCAR has to change the rule to allow the "Lucky Dog" to regain a lap only if he is "in contact" with the leader. Doesn't that seem a little more fair? Under the old method a car a half a lap down never made up that distance before the leader made it to the start/finish line.
Can I define "in contact"? No, I can't. I suggest NASCAR have "race referees" make that call. I'll expand on my idea of "race referees" in a future blog, but I've long believed that NASCAR needs more objectivity in the making of judgement calls. To me "in contact" might be thought of as realistically able to pass the leader under the old rule.
Some may argue that this concept prevents popular teams from staying "in" the race. Yes it does. One pit mistake or one bad adjustment puts a team a lap down and they may not be able to make it up. Isn't that what racing is all about? Mistakes and bad breaks have to be endured. I rather have a race than a contrived show.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Rules of Racing
When I started going to local short track races long ago, one of the first things I was told was that a driver attempting to pass on the inside of another car had "earned" the spot (the pass) when he had his front bumper up to the door of the car he was passing. If that had not been achieved, the driver on the outside still had the position and was entitled to come down on (chop off) the car on the inside, who was required to back off and let the guy in.
I still believe that is the correct approach, but I do understand that, when racing for a position late in the race, some of these "rules" are thrown under the bus. And rightly so. When the race is on for the win some things get blurry.
But, let's not forget these "rules". The driver on the outside still has the right to chop off the passer on the inside if the passer is not up to his door. Apparently, Jimmy Johnson does not understand that "rule". When asked about his pass of Denny Hamlin late in the race at Martinsville he said that people should look at the tape because they'll see that Denny chopped down on him. Yes he did, and rightfully so.
Since Jimmy was only up to Denny's quarter panel he had the tacit responsibility of backing off and letting Denny back down. He didn't, and I don't blame him. It was late in the race and he wanted to win. The "rule" is blurred at that point. But, he has no right to complain that Denny chopped down on him. Denny was following the "rules of racing", Jimmy was not.
I still believe that is the correct approach, but I do understand that, when racing for a position late in the race, some of these "rules" are thrown under the bus. And rightly so. When the race is on for the win some things get blurry.
But, let's not forget these "rules". The driver on the outside still has the right to chop off the passer on the inside if the passer is not up to his door. Apparently, Jimmy Johnson does not understand that "rule". When asked about his pass of Denny Hamlin late in the race at Martinsville he said that people should look at the tape because they'll see that Denny chopped down on him. Yes he did, and rightfully so.
Since Jimmy was only up to Denny's quarter panel he had the tacit responsibility of backing off and letting Denny back down. He didn't, and I don't blame him. It was late in the race and he wanted to win. The "rule" is blurred at that point. But, he has no right to complain that Denny chopped down on him. Denny was following the "rules of racing", Jimmy was not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
