Judge's Opinion, Raceday 2010

[ahundt]

I have decided to post my opinions in full to encourage respectful discourse. Please do not abuse this opportunity, or take it out of context. Here is everything you wanted to know:

Put yourself in the position of head judge and chairman. Here you are expecting a great day of racing, even with the possibility of a new record. Suddenly, out of the blue the fire marshal comes to you and says there was a dangerous situation with a propane tank near the trucks. He explains to you that propane is heavy, and will stay near the ground and flow, "seeking out" an ignition source should there be a leak. You look at the rules, and they clearly state that the entire organization in possession of the tank must be DQ'd. You look at each other, and say "Oh f@$%, is there anything else we can do? I really don't want to do this." The answer is no. The fire marshal, appointed to the position of assessing fire safety hazards, identified a fire safety hazard and explained to you the severity of it. Your only option now is to enforce those rules. So you do a death walk, dreading every step down towards the team you are going to DQ, a team that is not only expected to win, but also has a great chance at beating their own team record. You reach them, and ask to speak with their chairman and head mechanic. Every second feels like an hour. They come out, and you, the sweepstakes chairman, advisor, and fire marshal explain how the fire marshal saw the propane tank, and that their team will be DQ'd. They attempt to defend themselves because the tank wasn't in the truck. The fire marshal then explains exactly what they told you before- how propane lays low and seeks out an ignition source. One of the team's execs comes to the realization that this is really going to happen and breaks out in tears. How do you feel about disqualifying them? Do you think Sweepstakes wanted to do it?

Honestly, many loopholes were tried. Letting them roll DQ'd, exercising the advisor's ability to arbitrarily change any rule, having the team filing a rerun form and trying to approve it. It was all tried, and it didn't work. There was an appeals process, it was followed and the appeal was denied. The university staff felt a reversal would send the wrong message. The fact is that the rules are clear. When the fire marshal identifies and is adamant about a fire safety violation, there is nothing you can do but enforce them.

People keep arguing over the definition of 'near'. It is very simple. Don't have any flammable liquids more than 2 oz of lube and whatever runs the truck, and then you don't care what the definition of near is. If you've got none, there is no gray area.

I have to say that all of SDC behaved more than admirably in the time after their DQ given the difficult situation they were in. I can't thank them enough for their display of respect and sportsmanship.



The SDC Men's C team decision was made as follows: SDC was slightly ahead of PiKA at the top of hill 2. They were each clearly in their separate lanes at this time, and neither driver could see the other. Due to the right hand turn and/or the shove at the top of hill 2, PiKA pulled slightly ahead of SDC. Shortly after they made incidental contact with PiKA slightly ahead of SDC. This was not cause for disqualification, as neither driver could have been aware of the other's exact position until this contact was made. However, once the contact was made, the SDC C driver was immediately aware of the PiKA driver ahead of her due to both the impact and the fairing in front of her windshield. She attempted to turn left to put some distance between her and the other buggy, but instead brushed the curb. At this point she was trapped in this position and her only option was to brake and take a reroll. Instead, she continued to drive forward faster than the PiKA buggy from behind. This qualifies as an attempted pass, causing her to bear the primary responsibility of ensuring the pass is completed without contact. Almost immediately afterward she collided again with the PiKA buggy, resulting in disqualification.

Additional clarifications: She did not bounce off the curb as some have proposed. Significant contact of the rear left wheel with the curb would cause the buggy to turn left into the curb, in the exact same manner that the spirit buggy did between the transition and chute flags. An additional factor in this decision was the driver meeting, where drivers were explicitly told that the following driver (as opposed to the leading driver) must brake in this type of situation to avoid a collision.



The rank rule wasn't enforced in 2007 or 2008. That precedent was followed.



Upon video review, the SigNu fairing did not significantly interfere with PiKA's time in that heat.



As for next year, I expect the rules to be changed to employ the remediation that Beta received last year or something similar. It was effective, and it is better for both safety and participation in the sport than a 15 month DQ could ever be. Beta had one of the shortest lists of rules violated both on and off the course this year, and that speaks well of both Beta and the action taken by Sweepstakes.



The relevant fire safety rules, in full from page 72:
Buggy Preparation Areas
In order to reduce the possibility of accidents or injuries in the areas in which the buggies are prepared for the races, these areas shall be randomly inspected both before and during the Sweepstakes races by fire marshals, the Safety Chairman, or anyone else designated by the Dean of Student Affairs or the Sweepstakes Advisor. Any organization found to have unsafe or dangerous conditions in their buggy preparation area before or during the Sweepstakes races by any of these safety inspectors shall be fined the amount of $100.00 AND shall have ALL of their buggies immediately disqualified from all of the men’s races, the women’s races, and the design competition for that school year. In addition, any organization found to have ANY combustible liquids and/or ANY source of open flame in or near their buggy preparation area before or during the Sweepstakes races shall not be permitted to participate in ANY activity related to the Sweepstakes Competition for a period of 15 months from the date on which the violation is discovered. The following safety requirements apply AS A MINIMUM, to all buggy preparation areas both during and immediately before all Sweepstakes races:
NO quantity of ANY combustible liquid is permitted in or near the buggy preparation areas. (The ONLY exceptions to this requirement shall be quantities of lubricating fluid not greater in volume than two fluid ounces used to lubricate wheel bearings and the working fluids contained in motor vehicles and needed for their proper operation.)
No source of open flame is permitted in or near the buggy preparation areas.

The relevant driver rules, in full from page 69:
If during a heat, one entry’s buggy (and pusher, if the buggy is being pushed at that time) tries to pass another entry’s buggy (and pusher),the passing buggy (and pusher) has the primary responsibility of ensuring that the pass is completed without contact or any other type of foul between the buggies (or pushers). If contact or some other type of foul occurs between the buggies (or pushers) during an attempted pass, the judges shall determine which buggy (or pusher), if any, is at fault.
If during a heat, two entries’ buggies (and pushers, if the buggies are being pushed at the time) are traveling beside each other and neither is clearly passing the other, both buggies (and pushers) have the responsibility of ensuring that no contact or other type of foul occurs between the buggies (and pushers). If contact or some other type of foul occurs between the buggies (or pushers), the judges shall determine which buggy (or pusher), if any, is at fault.

[TommyK]

Thanks for posting Andrew. Facts are helpful.

[aitong]

Thanks Andrew - hearing the story from someone who experienced it first hand definitely helps.

As for next year, I expect the rules to be changed to employ the remediation that Beta received last year or something similar. It was effective, and it is better for both safety and participation in the sport than a 15 month DQ could ever be. Beta had one of the shortest lists of rules violated both on and off the course this year, and that speaks well of both Beta and the action taken by Sweepstakes.

Before people start re-writing the rules again, some questions...

What were the terms of Beta coming back this year? I was told they were on a "very short leash" - does anyone know the exact details of what that meant? To be blunt, it would be good to know if Beta's good behaivor was because of a restrictions imposed on them, or if sweepstakes just got lucky because Beta found some people who had read the rules.

Also, can someone who was involved with writing the rule talk about why the rule specifies an instant dq AND the 15 month suspension? The current rule has been in place 25ish years - changing it without having an understanding of that history might be a mistake.

[Carleton]

Someone did mention that the writers of the rule were present this year. Maybe they could chime be convinced to take part in this discussion?

[ahundt]

As I understand, the following were APPROXIMATELY the terms of beta's reinstatement:

- Biweekly meetings with the sweepstakes advisor
- Attendance of all chairmen's meetings
- Letter to all chairman indicating their plan to regain the trust of the buggy community
- Team committee attendance of fire safety meeting plus signature
- Rules meeting plus signature acknowledging the rules (this was a meeting all chairmen attended)
- Creation of an educational outline of the safety rules to make them more clear for distribution to chairmen
- Maximum of two missed chores for the year
- Timely communication and completion of administrative work
- Review of 2009-2010 performance to determine probation for 2010-2011 season, with the potential for monthly meetings with the sweepstakes advisor thereafter.

Violation of these items would result in review of their status and possible reinstatement of the suspension.

This may not be a complete or accurate picture of all action taken in the last year, it is simply the window I had into the situation.

The sweepstakes advisor also specifically stated that she was NOT setting a precedent with this decision, that these measures were specifically tailored to last year's situation. They may or may not be appropriate for the current situation. The commutation of beta's suspension was enacted under the authority provided to the Sweepstakes Advisor in bylaws section 3.1.1 Personnel, Sweepstakes Advisor.

[Elmo Zoneball]

[snip]

People keep arguing over the definition of 'near'. It is very simple. Don't have any flammable liquids more than 2 oz of lube and whatever runs the truck, and then you don't care what the definition of near is. If you've got none, there is no gray area.

[snip]

First let me thank you for providing transparency into the decision process.

Now to the quoted part of your post: this is colloquially known as "moving the goal posts." Under the rules, AS WRITTEN, an organization CAN have flammable liquids as long as they are not "in or near" the "buggy preparation area." But you are making the argument that if they had not brought flammables at all to the race, nobody would have to notice that the word "near" was not adequately defined in the rule. That's a true statement of course, just as saying "if you were riding a bicycle instead of driving a car, we wouldn't have to argue whether the speed limit was 65 MPH or 55MPH." Hence, you are "moving the goal posts." Rule 10.5.5 does not ban possession of flammables per se, only possession in proximity -- "near" -- the "buggy preparation area. And your argument then becomes "if SDC didn't violate a rule that does not exist, we wouldn't have to argue that the the rule that does exist is ambiguous, and thus its enforcement is, by definition, capricious."

There is no rule that outright bans flammables; there is only 10.5.5, which bans flammables within an undefined proximity of buggy preparation areas, and arguing that "well, if they hadn't brought flammables at all, they would have been in compliance" is "goalpost moving" at it worst.

A vague rule is an unfair rule; the right thing to do is fix the ambiguity, before somebody else gets nailed for violating a rule they cannot possibly know for certain how to comply with.

[DangerMike]

The fire marshal thought it was close enough to be dangerous. Therefore, any reasonable change to the rule would have to include the area in question. If we really wanted to write this perfectly, there would be differing "safe" distances for different materials. Propane apparently has a death wish. Hydrogen is much more interested in exploring the upper atmosphere. I don't know, but I don't claim to be an expert.

You know who is an expert? Fire Marshal Bob! Sweepstakes rightly deferred to his experience and expertise on this subject.

[DangerMike]

A vague rule is an unfair rule; the right thing to do is fix the ambiguity, before somebody else gets nailed for violating a rule they cannot possibly know for certain how to comply with.

Uh, yeah they can know: Ask first!

[josh.ayers]

You know who is an expert? Fire Marshal Bob! Sweepstakes rightly deferred to his experience and expertise on this subject.

That's correct. Whether or not the propane was dangerous is irrelevant to the debate over the fairness of the DQ. The relevant point, that Elmo has just made, is that there was no way for SDC to know that it was dangerous by reading the rules. There was an important part of the rules that weren't written down - they were only known to Fire Marshall Bob.

They had no way of knowing that 10 yards away from the truck was considered "near" the buggy preparation area, especially considering the prior use of propane heaters at rolls. Once Fire Marshall Bob saw the LP tank, and decided that 10 yards was too close, it was too late. They were already disqualified with no way to remedy the problem.

That is the thing that makes the DQ unfair. The right thing to do would be to tell SDC to immediately remove the LP tank. Then rewrite the rule to say no flammable liquids are allowed anywhere on the course, or no liquids within 100 yards of a truck, or whatever Fire Marshall Bob thinks is safe.

[Carleton]

You know who is an expert? Fire Marshal Bob!

I don't mean this as some sort of dig at FMB. What are his credentials? What is his day job away from being sweepstakes fire marshal 2 days a year? The only thing I really know about him is that he's been doing raceday fire marshaling for decades.