worst red light debate, again!

[bill dedman]

Originally Posted by Ed Fernandez

John Kelly:

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

KILL THE MESSENGER note # 6354

No other info... at all.

[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

.

[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 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....

[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

[Marvin Robinson]

Originally Posted by 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....

The first or worst rule makes sense, and if the debate to have is whether to have a "worst" rule only , if both R/L and B/O, how do you determine who was the worst offender?? The earliest leave, or the most under... you could get dizzy trying to figure out who should be the winner with a big red & just under vs a slight red and waaay under.....

[Jim Wahl]

Originally Posted by Marvin Robinson

The first or worst rule makes sense, and if the debate to have is whether to have a "worst" rule only , if both R/L and B/O, how do you determine who was the worst offender?? The earliest leave, or the most under... you could get dizzy trying to figure out who should be the winner with a big red & just under vs a slight red and waaay under.....

That has already been figured out Marvin, a red light trumps a break out, Just as crossing the center line trumps both. Jim