worst red light debate, again!

[John Kelley]

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

Yeah it really makes it fair,especially for those non racers who get on here asking for justice.

You like to SLAM people....
BUT you have never given a single sensible reason not to change it !
At post # 90 on this thread you said you were DONE with this subject...... :-)

[Andys dad]

OK I will mention this for the fourth time in this thread - no one has ever responded in all 58 pages

Why is it unfair to have them both lose - advantage no one

A racer who DQd himself does not get a "do over" or muligan


:-) peace

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Andys dad

OK I will mention this for the fourth time in this thread - no one has ever responded in all 58 pages

Why is it unfair to have them both lose - advantage no one

A racer who DQd himself does not get a "do over" or muligan


:-) peace

Hey, Dad...

Would you think that disqualifying both cars in a race in which they both broke out would be a good idea?

If you're going to deal with a double red light by disqualifying both cars, to be consistent, you'd have to do the same in a double breakout situation.

What do you think?

And, having eliminated 4 cars (two double red lights and two double breakouts) what would you do for a winner in the Eliminator, if that happened in the last two rounds of racing?

All I see for that plan is unnecessary complication, where eliminating ONLY the worse offender in each case, keeps things fair and introduces NO more complication.

How about it, Dad?

[Andys dad]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Hey, Dad...

Would you think that disqualifying both cars in a race in which they both broke out would be a good idea?

If you're going to deal with a double red light by disqualifying both cars, to br consistent, you'd have to do the same in a double breakout situation.

What do you think?

And, having eliminated 4 cars (two double red lights and two double breakouts) what would you do for a winner in the Eliminator, if that happened in the last two rounds of racing?

All I see for that plan is unnecessary complication, where eliminating ONLY the worse offender in each case, keeps things fair and introduces NO more complication.

How about it, Dad?

Hey Bill - Ron Here (as it says at the bottom of my posts)

Why not deal with one thing at a time - this thread was about red lights

You did not answer what is UNFAIR about both losing - if both red light

Answer this and then lets start a new thread on break outs



I realize this forum is a form of entertainmenet for you and others

It is a debating society and it is entertaining at times




BTW - BOs use to be the way you described

[Jim Wahl]

Originally Posted by Andys dad

Hey Bill - Ron Here (as it says at the bottom of my posts)

Why not deal with one thing at a time - this thread was about red lights

You did not answer what is UNFAIR about both losing - if both red light

Answer this and then lets start a new thread on break outs



I realize this forum is a form of entertainmenet for you and others

It is a debating society and it is entertaining at times




BTW - BOs use to be the way you described

Ron, I believe Bill answered your question very well! Interesting. Jim

.

[Andys dad]

Originally Posted by Jim Wahl

Ron, I believe Bill answered your question very well! Interesting. Jim

.

No he did not

Do you really think - three questions and bringing up a totally unrelated topic (BOs) was an answer to the question of - "Why is it unfair to have them both lose - advantage no one?"

BTW - It is not complicated to explain you both DQ'd yourself you both lose - no one gets a do over - no one gets a mulligan

I have a car and a race to prepare for so I may not be able to entertain myself as much as you or I might like with this debate

I only got involved because the others seemed to be losing interest and I think we should go for the record of "most posts"

You may never know how I really feel - since as a former debate team member in college you never knew which side of an issue you were going to have to support - so you needed to be able to support both

LMAO

:-) peace

[Mark Yacavone]

The idea of eliminator racing, (round robin style) is to end up with a (1) winner .
Therefore ,you'd need a first OR worse contingent built into the rules to get there, which many feel should apply throughout.
If only two cars show up for a race ,and both breakout , no one would get to see a winner.
How popular do you think that would be?
If all four cars in the semi's were to double R/L or double B/O, who gets the money? NHRA?
Not a workable plan.

Moving on....

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Andys dad

Hey Bill - Ron Here (as it says at the bottom of my posts)

Why not deal with one thing at a time - this thread was about red lights

You did not answer what is UNFAIR about both losing - if both red light

Answer this and then lets start a new thread on break outs



I realize this forum is a form of entertainmenet for you and others

It is a debating society and it is entertaining at times




BTW - BOs use to be the way you described

Ron,

Sorry; somehow I missed your posted name. My bad...

No, I don't see anything unfair about disqualifying both cars that redlight.
Having said that, I would also like to say that I don't see that it accomplishes anything, other than "thinning the herd" as it makes its way toward a final round. Additionally, I think that some degree of consistency in the rules, is a good thing, and this disqualifying BOTH red lighters would be in contention with the way breakouts are treated (WORSE breakout loses.)

I don't see that dual protocol as a good thing; do you? In the interest of consistency and simplicity, I think they should both be the same; "worse infraction loses."

What we have now, is schizoid.

[Andys dad]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

Ron,

Sorry; somehow I missed your posted name. My bad...

No, I don't see anything unfair about disqualifying both cars that redlight.
Having said that, I would also like to say that I don't see that it accomplishes anything, other than "thinning the herd" as it makes its way toward a final round. Additionally, I think that some degree of consistency in the rules, is a good thing, and this disqualifying BOTH red lighters would be in contention with the way breakouts are treated (WORSE breakout loses.)

I don't see that dual protocol as a good thing; do you? In the interest of consistency and simplicity, I think they should both be the same; "worse infraction loses."

What we have now, is schizoid.

I get your point but the winner would be the guy smart enough - not to red light or BO

If the rules were different the racing would be different

You may never know how I really feel - since as a former debate team member in college you never knew which side of an issue you were going to have to support - so you needed to be able to support both

Got to get back to work so I can afford to race - LOL quietly here at the office

:-) peace

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by John Kelley

You like to SLAM people....
BUT you have never given a single sensible reason not to change it !
At post # 90 on this thread you said you were DONE with this subject...... :-)

John Kelly:

NHRA Class #:None
" Type of car:None
Future NHRA # and car:None
Rule change implications for John Kelly:None
Conclusion:Nosey body