How is punishment decided?

[Maido]

So I was reading the race numbers thread and gots a thinking (I know, amazing isn't it) about penalties for this type of thing.

Currently if someone breaks the rules in some way, how does the punishment get decided.

My limited experience about this is that I had a situation at nationals where I investigated a protest regarding a possible yellow flag pass. Had I continued through with it and it was upheld what punishment is deemed fair to all parties. I am a friend with the other rider and he knew this certainly wan't a personal thing, however I would be pissed of if he had lost all points for the round as opposed to getting a time penality for example.

I believe in the AMA there is a sliding scale in terms of severety of the breech, ie a "small breech" like an incorrect number size, would be different from "big breech" like running an oversize engine. This includes things not only about the legallity of the bike but things like rider conduct etc. The small breech would carry a smaller penality that doesn't effect points for example as it doesn't effect the racing, as opposed to a larger breech that could change a race.

I figure it is up to the meeting holder/stewart of the meetings descression what type of discliplinary measure is taken, is this generally the case? I imagine with some things it gets a little more complicated (the whole Stroud vs Rees passing thing a few years back).

How is this generally decided and is it the bast way to do it?

[SWERVE]

I guess if as far as numbers go........ if scrutineering was carried out correctly (or at all) you would be told to go away and change numbers and then re-scutineer.
But as you say what is! the relative punishment for any breaches of regs.
Thats trouble with signing a disclaimer instead of scutineering......... most breaches are only picked up down the track or under protest. Rather than before the rider/bike is on the track.
Be interesting to see what others have to say on this one................. a possible can of worms...this one

[Shaun]

I reckon Maido was just bored with asking his staff to do more work so just came up wih this load of bollocks.

Sorry but simple, if you want bikes to appair legal/within the rules, YOU MUST HAVE OFFICUALL SCRUITINEERING, this would fix the issue, also make the racing safer!

[jellywrestler]

Sorry but simple, if you want bikes to appair legal/within the rules, YOU MUST HAVE OFFICUALL SCRUITINEERING, this would fix the issue, also make the racing safer!

absolute poppycock.
Scrutineering is for the safety of the bike, not the eligibility.

[Shaun]

absolute poppycock.
Scrutineering is for the safety of the bike, not the eligibility.

" also makes the racing safer"

Means to me that the bikes are safer rreeeeeerrrrrrr, so the scruitineering of the old days kills two birds with one stone


PS- How ya dreams going about ya Granny tonight mate hahahahhaa

[ellipsis]

...'tis a can of worms..running a race meeting, these days is definitely an easier job, regards time and organising the relative officials, when it is regarded as a, 'the onus, is on the rider', affair... in a lot of our events these days...we threaten,'spot checks', at our riders brief...leaves a hollow feeling sometimes...like we are not really playing the game like it's meant to be played...preservation of the sport, 'n all that...the liability issue is the 'issue'...

[Grumph]

Scrutineering has always been a numbers game - never enough scrutineers, always too many competitors...
In the old days - and I mean pre quake here, ladies, when Canty were getting over 200 people turning up to ride at club days they were starting sign in around 7.30 am or earlier I believe...just to get in a reasonable day's racing. With entry numbers like this the declaration system at least makes it possible to start before lunchtime.
To the best of my knowledge, scrutineering in NZ has never been about eligibility - always and only safety and compliance with the "motorcycles technical" section of the rule book.
IMO introducing eligibility at scrutineering is the wrong place and time - look at it when the entry is made.And protest later....
Numbers of course have always been part of scrutineering - and must stay part for all the reasons already stated - I've turned bikes away at the GP because of numbers and been told - it was accepted at Manfield/wanganui etc....wadda you do?

[Shaun]

Scrutineering has always been a numbers game - never enough scrutineers, always too many competitors...
In the old days - and I mean pre quake here, ladies, when Canty were getting over 200 people turning up to ride at club days they were starting sign in around 7.30 am or earlier I believe...just to get in a reasonable day's racing. With entry numbers like this the declaration system at least makes it possible to start before lunchtime.
To the best of my knowledge, scrutineering in NZ has never been about eligibility - always and only safety and compliance with the "motorcycles technical" section of the rule book.
IMO introducing eligibility at scrutineering is the wrong place and time - look at it when the entry is made.And protest later....
Numbers of course have always been part of scrutineering - and must stay part for all the reasons already stated - I've turned bikes away at the GP because of numbers and been told - it was accepted at Manfield/wanganui etc....wadda you do?

Ya do wadda the Rule book tells ya too ( Drew) I Guess Grumph. Numbers have become a fassion thing ( Been there done it myself) and not the practical thing they are there for. If we all looked wank at the same time, we all look wank together, NO DRAMA