Tony Pedregon vs Mike Neff (rnd 1) : Did Tony get screwed? (1 Viewer)

[HEMI6point1]

There's the pic of the white centerline and Tony's comments.

INSIDE THE NEFF/T-PED CONTROVERSY

I was thinking Tony finally got out of "whiner mode" until I read the part where he thinks the rule should be changed. Basically, it's fine until it doesn't benefit you - then it's suspect.

At least he admitted if he went a-to-b the whole thing would be moot.

 

[James]

I was thinking Tony finally got out of "whiner mode" until I read the part where he thinks the rule should be changed. Basically, it's fine until it doesn't benefit you - then it's suspect.

At least he admitted if he went a-to-b the whole thing would be moot.

That's not exactly whining. He makes a good point,and i too,think the rule should be revisited.

 

[Brian]

I'm not a TPed fan at all but I respect the way he handled this. It would be easy to make this rule completely clear so there wouldn't be a question.

 

[Shaggy]

Someone point me to the rule in the rulebook that says you can not cross the centerline... For that matter I havent seen a spot that says you cant hit the wall either, but may be overlooking it... None-the-less the rule needs to be redone if you get dq for hitting a cone, but not the white line... Also I see it as very unsafe for the body to not be the deciding factor over the tires since the body in this case is actually in the other lane...

 

[MM]

I have yet to see a good head on shot or video of the run. All of the camera angles I have seen, the viewpoint of the camera was angled, so I don't trust them. It's hard to argue with the picture on Comp Plus of the tire marks. The marks never crossed the line, so Neff should have been the winner.

 

[Shaggy]

I am not arguing any result... No matter what happened, the race director made their decision... I am just trying to figure out how to read the rulebook properly...lol

And MM you are correct about the angles...you can think something happened when it actually didnt... I know this from experience shooting the different angles...

 

[clwill]

Someone point me to the rule in the rulebook that says you can not cross the centerline...

How about:

In determining lane-boundary-crossing violations, it is considered a disqualification when any portion of a tire completely crosses the painted-line surface. In cases where both opponents cross the centerline or outside line, both drivers will be disqualified. In situations where multiple boundary lines are utilized, the line directly adjacent to the competitor’s racing lane will be used for reference.

 

[Shaggy]

Thanks Christopher.... I had a feeling I missed it...

 

[Huge]

That's not exactly whining. He makes a good point,and i too,think the rule should be revisited.

Will you explain why you think the rule should be revisited? There has to be a boundary line. What better then a white line and black tire marks. I don't see how the rule or the out come could have been any clearer.

 

[clwill]

Will you explain why you think the rule should be revisited? There has to be a boundary line. What better then a white line and black tire marks. I don't see how the rule or the out come could have been any clearer.

I wonder if it might be easier to say "if you touch the line, you're out"? The "must be completely over the line" seems to be open to difficult interpretation, whereas "touch it at all" seems easier to determine.

 

[Huge]

I wonder if it might be easier to say "if you touch the line, you're out"? The "must be completely over the line" seems to be open to difficult interpretation, whereas "touch it at all" seems easier to determine.

I thought about that too. I think either one would be a good rule. I just don't see a need to fix something that is not broken. To me the ruling was as clear as black and white. But if everyone thought there was a need to make a change, that would probably be a good one.

 

[MM]

I wonder if it might be easier to say "if you touch the line, you're out"? The "must be completely over the line" seems to be open to difficult interpretation, whereas "touch it at all" seems easier to determine.

It's called crossing the center line, not touching the center line. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[TR]

Will you explain why you think the rule should be revisited? There has to be a boundary line. What better then a white line and black tire marks. I don't see how the rule or the out come could have been any clearer.

It looks like the last time that line was painted was quite a while ago. You would think for a national event Topeka would have re-painted it, it is hard to see the tire with all the other black stuff on that line. Pretty lame not to re-paint for a national event. Just my 2 cents, but it would have shown the tire better. The call was made and that's it, I don't think Tony was whining in my opinion.
Rick

 

[Shaggy]

Also I see it as very unsafe for the body to not be the deciding factor over the tires since the body in this case is actually in the other lane...

As of now this is the only thing I would possibly have a gripe about, however I know that the reason it is determined by the tires is so they can actually see the tire marks on the line itself for proof positive...

 

[clock guy]

the line was painted Thursday night

 

[Bullard Anderson]

I see the tires contact patch did not cross the centerline. However, looking at the photo the vertical plane of the back tire must have crossed the centerline given the size of a Funny Car tire. But it appears that doesn't count and really can't be determined given camera angles, body encroachment, and high speeds.

I'm fine with the ruling. Bascially if the tire mark would have crossed the centerline he's done. This is a black and white rule. Black and White rules are good at 300mph.

 

[Nitro Jim]

To my tired old eyes I see two white lines either side of what can then only be deemed as the centre line... Even if the white line was touched the centre line has not been breached.

I realise not all tracks have two lines up the centre of the track but from the pictures I see in this thread, this one certainly does!

Please note that my spelling of "centre" is how us that use the Queen's English spell it!

 

[TR]

the line was painted Thursday night

Your kidding, I am no painter but-----.

Rick

 

[Shaggy]

NHRA 2011 Rulebook, Section 2, Page 7
In determining lane-boundary-crossing violations, it is considered a disqualification when any portion of a tire completely crosses the painted-line surface. In cases where both opponents cross the centerline or outside line, both drivers will be disqualified. In situations where multiple boundary lines are utilized, the line directly adjacent to the competitor’s racing lane will be used for reference.

Double centerlines are explained in the rules shown to me earlier...

 

[Rat]

ok this could quickly turn in to a t.ped/force racing war and I for one am just saying I am a fan of the funny cars. I agree with Tony how the NHRA may be correct but the rule does need to be revisited. If you take out a timing cone your out but not if your on the line.

Make the rule where nothing can cross any white line. Make it where you hit the cone your out, you touch the line your out so it all matches and no NFL type of review needs to happen cause I guarantee you there's 3 million force bashers and 6 million Tony bashers out there somewhere and they need to make the rule that can avoid this. I must say I find it hard to see how so much of the car is over the line and the tire still be inside the white, but I leave it to NHRA, but fix that rule Mr. Light