Force may be fined $140,000 for "F" bombs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ironpony
- Start date
Nick Name
Nitro Member
Exactly
none
Nitro Member
And you speak for the nhra. You said this and I took it as a threat and something that was going to happen
I would be very surprised if there's not some serious repercussion from this. There's a reason that you don't hear language like that on network TV. Cable is different, but the rules for Network TV are quite strict. An "S" bomb on FS1 isn't the same as an "F" bomb on FOX
If the fcc fines him he needs to step up and understand this is how it it. My comments are entirely concerned with the nhra fining him.
I would be very surprised if there's not some serious repercussion from this. There's a reason that you don't hear language like that on network TV. Cable is different, but the rules for Network TV are quite strict. An "S" bomb on FS1 isn't the same as an "F" bomb on FOX
If the fcc fines him he needs to step up and understand this is how it it. My comments are entirely concerned with the nhra fining him.
SundayNiagara
Nitro Member
Girls:
This was settled several days ago.
This was settled several days ago.
none
Nitro Member
I have posted time and time again that when I'm here I am NOT speaking for the NHRA, I will certainly defend my employer when I feel they are being wrongly accused, but anything I post here is strictly my opinion. I don't live in California, nor do I work in the NHRA office. I am a contractor who works at the events and does some of the TV broadcasts.
Al Michaels may be the voice of Sunday Night Football, but he is not the official spokesman for the NFL.
Alan
Al Michaels may be the voice of Sunday Night Football, but he is not the official spokesman for the NFL.
Alan
none
Nitro Member
Girls:
This was settled several days ago.
I hope that you are right, but in my experience the FCC can take months to review and punish or clear a case, not a couple of days.
Alan
This is now old news, I believe, but I think even some here are taking this comments he made as part of his interview. If you actually watched at the time, you know his feet were hardly on the ground yet, and the camera and mic were still chasing him to get him in a stationary location. What was REALLY heard, was nothing more than background noise and should be seen as just that. His interview had ZERO obscene language in it, but did have an apology for anything that MAY have been overheard.
Sean D, shondoo
Nitro Member
This is a great point, with the attention it's getting being yet another example of the pussification of this country. People are just waiting in the weeds waiting for stuff like this to happen with no regard, much less any applicable knowledge to the circumstances. It's like nobody has the ability to see things for what they are anymore and would much rather pounce sooner than engage their brain. If anybody thinks for a second that what he said while he was sliding down the roof of that car was scripted/pre-planned in any way, man, I can't help you. Truth to be known, he himself probably didn't even realize what he said until well after the fact.
And the comparisons of standards set by the FCC for live versus network television are just dumb, IMO. Colorful language, sexual content or anything else considered an adult situation is just that, regardless of whether it's live or not. The bottom line is all the above and then some can be seen pretty much whenever and wherever you want, so what the hell difference does it make? Those parameters lack common sense. And if I were to guess (because I certainly don't know) there are significantly less live broadcasts available on television than there are anything else, which makes it that much more ridiculous.
Sean D
And while I’m thinking about it, we go to the top end shot to see a driver’s natural reactions, but then vilify them for being human, when a smart producer could have avoided the whole thing by not going to the top end camera until AFTER he was actually ready to give an interview. So, who is really at fault, the man being himself, or the one that wanted his reaction?
Dennis
Nitro Member
And this is the crux of the argument.
John Force is not a broadcaster, he is a race car driver/team owner. As such I would imagine that he believes people handling the broadcasts would be competent in their field and these issues should not be a concern of any driver/team owner. The issue that NHRA should be concerned about is - who signed off on a delay-free live broadcast? NHRA and/or Fox are the broadcasters and, as you say, know the rules and what the penalty is. Who thought it was a good idea to not have a delay on a sporting event that features live, adrenaline-fueled interviews?
The issue is NHRA/Fox, not Force. I'm not a Force fan, but this is totally wrong to think Force should be responsible for the actions of someone sitting behind a desk.
SoCal Racer
Nitro Member
I knew a guy who used to work as one of the top end crew that helps the drivers out of the cars and with their safety gear, parachutes, etc. He told me you wouldn't believe some of the language that comes out of their mouths at that moment. But then the drivers compose themselves and go for their interview. I tend to agree that in their haste to get an interview the FOX camera crew was a bit too on top of the situation. They don't usually have cameras and mics rolling as the hatch is opening. Their bad.
I don't condone that language, but put yourself in the driver's shoes...... driving really fast race cars is an exhilarating and almost surreal thing. Then add to that it being a run with significant racing history on the line. Some emotion at the end is likely!
As far as the fine goes, the FCC can fine if they deem it a serious enough infraction; and NHRA is within their rights to fine at their discretion - no matter what 'Maters think about it
From the rule book:1.3.1 Participant Conduct
"Participants at events are expected, at all times, to conduct themselves in a professional and non-disruptive manner consistent with good sportsmanship and NHRA’s role as a family oriented sports organization with events suitable for attendance by all and, as to those events that are televised, suitable for unrestricted viewing by the general public. Any participant who, in the sole and absolute judgment of NHRA (1) verbally or physically threatens another person; (2) uses vulgar or derogatory language; (3) engages in unsportsmanlike conduct; (4) engages in conduct detrimental to the sport of racing; ……. shall have violated this rule regarding participant conduct."
What is derogatory about using a verb as punctuation?
Man, if I need a soap opera fix I can come here... sheesh...
As the Mater turns... has a nice ring to it...
T.Smith
Nitro Member
"The crux of the biscuit"...sorry, I had to get in a Zappa reference!
winr
Nitro Member
Not even close to the true origin of the word... look it up!
I really cant believe that puritans still exist and are Drag Racing fans...its only a word d get over it. He was excited and emotions often break down barriers for good or bad. No one was irrevocably harmed and I sure if we ask nicely Lorie will wash his mouth out with soap!
SoCal Racer
Nitro Member
What is derogatory about using a verb as punctuation?
As long as the grammar is correct!
I'm neither judge nor jury, and don't write the rules; just posted them for those who thought NHRA hasn't reserved their right to fine.
Hey Bill, go up to the biggest guy in the bar and say FU to his face and tell him its just a word. Then call him puritan. LOL!!
OK, what is your definition?
What?
Can people who don't like such language not be drag racing fans?
It's one thing to talk like that when no cameras are around. But, Force knew the cameras would be on him as soon as he raised the hatch.
The other nitro drivers don't seem to have much trouble curbing their language while being interviewed as soon as they climb out of their cars.
Similar threads
- Article
