Quote:
Originally Posted by Skytrooper
Try being the key word Jim. It will never be an exact science. I certainly do not think a DQ is in order unless they can indisputably come up with evidence that shows it was intentional. Using your arguement, the Porsche Cup driver (I know it is not the same race) that ran out of fuel before reaching the pits after qualifying should have been disqualified instead of starting at the back of the pack since his crew knowingly put less than the required amount of fuel in to guarantee he made it back to the pits. Now if you are still with me, and he had less fuel than required but enough to make it back to the pits..is this a "No fault..No foul" type of situation ?
I am not trying to flame you. I just want to find out where you are coming from.
|
Fair response. I would counter that trying includes bulding in enough margin to err on the side of caution, or compliance.
To your excellent second example, it is "qualifying" for position to start the race. If the car was not compliant technically, DQ might be appropriate if it's something that cannot be corrected prior to the race. If the car was underfueled, a back of the grid penalty might be appropriate to negate their advantange. This differs from being non-compliant in the actual race, as the race is the final outcome. Being non-compliant in qualy on something correctable like fuel load is not the same as being non-compliant in the actual race. There, it's too late to correct and the advantage was already in hand.