N/A
Nitro Member
After charging for parking for the first time ($10) this shouldn't ba a problem for next year.
Tony Pedregon vs Mike Neff (rnd 1) : Did Tony get screwed? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter .
- Start date
After charging for parking for the first time ($10) this shouldn't ba a problem for next year.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Nominated for post of the year!!!
Thanks Martin!!!
His post should not be post of the year, it's a point that he made that I will never get a chance to see if I succeed or fail at it so that's just an empty point. Give me and others alike the chance, i'm ready. I wont write a rulebook that's confusing, contradicting, and is made up as they go along!
Last edited:
What, out of the 2 rules you have referenced, is made up as they go along?
If ANYTHING, NHRA has held steadfast. You pee within 24 hours and you dont go over the stripe.
Just because you don't care for the outcome of them, doesn't mean they made them up as they go. They have remained consistent;.
Quit bashing NHRA because you dislike the rulings they enforce when they are applied as they are written.
Last edited:
if you wanna play that game then tell me what it says for approaching a situation like Mike's where he was at fault for bad timing yet was there before the deadline could not produce and gave anything he could to get the system to take his punishment uniquely. He was not the same.
I care for the outcome, i don't love arguments like these and why would it not be a good idea for the NHRA to rewrite some rules and be definitive instead of going half way?
Bullard Anderson
Nitro Member
Btw, I knew when I saw John Force's mug 8 times before he even ran in Round 1 that he would lose Round 1. Get him in there espn2 producer guy.
Rajunz
Nitro Member
Patrick, do you seriously want to say that within 24 hours he could not produce an adequate sample??? There was no bad timing on NHRA's part........................HE HAD 24 HOURS.
SundayNiagara
Nitro Member
You're gonna cry, 96 tears!
I know Lance I never said he's not guilty, his punishment should be accepted by him as it is deserved, yet the full penalty should not be implemented cause the NHRA never even thought about someone being in Mike's position. They need to do what there gonna do so mike can either futher plan his season or maybe race IHRA Pro Fuel
n/a
Nitro Member
The term Over Engineering comes to mind. And all the "what if's". What if the car is up on two wheels and the wheel in the air is two feet over the line leaving no tire mark? What if lasers are installed on some of these peoples keyboards so they don't cross the line. Some rules may not be perfect for all situations but that doesn't mean that they can be improved on. There was a tire mark on the line with two inches to spare, hence no infraction............... so we can move on now.
Crash
Nitro Member
I keep thinking that I will stop being surprised by stupidity, but nearly every day something happens to make me shake my head, from the end of the world prophecies to websites saying the Giffords shooting was an elaborate hoax...and then there are things like this. The picture of the tire tracks SHOULD end this discussion. Why in the world are we talking about it still? Maybe if there is enough whining and hand-ringing ala Force DQ in Vegas, the rule will be changed? The rule is simple and black and white, as is the evidence in this case. Geez, give it a rest.
I actually thought that WAS the rule, and I bet a lot of other people did too. As for the laser system, maybe your idea would work but I'm not sure we need to be that hi-tech with this. You could design a laser system around first base at major league ball games, too, but wouldn't you rather hear an ump simply say, "yer out!" and leave it at that?
Bullard Anderson
Nitro Member
Tim we live in a world today where preacher in Calfornia can calculate the end of the world and the National will run with it, and that gets more pub than Indy 500 Pole Day. Definitely not the world I grew up in the 90's.
mike
Nitro Member
the rule is your tires can't CROSS the center line and your car can't hit any part of the track, simple and to the point, and I don't see any compelling reason to change it...
if this didn't involve a Force car beating one of the Pedregons it wouldn't have rated a second mention; much less pages and pages of gnashing of teeth and wailing
if this didn't involve a Force car beating one of the Pedregons it wouldn't have rated a second mention; much less pages and pages of gnashing of teeth and wailing
SundayNiagara
Nitro Member
the rule is your tires can't CROSS the center line and your car can't hit any part of the track, simple and to the point, and I don't see any compelling reason to change it...
if this didn't involve a Force car beating one of the Pedregons it wouldn't have rated a second mention; much less pages and pages of gnashing of teeth and wailing
Post of the week!
TR
Nitro Member
Hey, business is slow on the forum so some time has to be used up. It is a dead horse and has been since the first page. When something better comes along to complain about or make stupid statements about, I am sure everybody will chime in. Just my opinion.
Rick
clwill
Nitro Member
I love it when the Mater gets all "meta" (talking about talking about things, why we talk about what we talk about, who's talking about what, what we should talk about, who has a right to talk about what). It's even better when it gets meta-meta (talking about sponsors reading what we're talking about). So silly.
My point is/was, if a rule is open to interpretation, as opposed to judgement, it should be fixed. And if a rule can be made easier to judge it should be fixed.
Interpretation is: what does the rule mean?
Judgement is: was the rule broken?
For example, the rule in baseball is "if the runner reaches first before the fielder catches the ball, he's safe". The interpretation is clear, judgement is why they have umpires.
This rule is open to interpretation. Does it mean the entire tire (e.g. the sidewall, the parts not touching the ground) or just the contact patch? Some clarification would help. If, in order to be able to use just the marks on the ground as the measure, it would be easier to judge if it's just the contact patch, then fine -- have the rule say that.
My point is/was, if a rule is open to interpretation, as opposed to judgement, it should be fixed. And if a rule can be made easier to judge it should be fixed.
Interpretation is: what does the rule mean?
Judgement is: was the rule broken?
For example, the rule in baseball is "if the runner reaches first before the fielder catches the ball, he's safe". The interpretation is clear, judgement is why they have umpires.
This rule is open to interpretation. Does it mean the entire tire (e.g. the sidewall, the parts not touching the ground) or just the contact patch? Some clarification would help. If, in order to be able to use just the marks on the ground as the measure, it would be easier to judge if it's just the contact patch, then fine -- have the rule say that.
