There is only ONE Oklahoma

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Just Thinkin

So Ryan Newman was hit with a 25 point reduction for having his right rear quarter panel being to high in post race inspection.

from Nascar:
NASCAR has issued penalties and fines to the #12 team that competes in the Sprint Cup Series, as a result of rule infractions found last Sunday at Texas Motor Speedway. The #12 car driven by Ryan Newman was found to be in violation of Sections 12-4-A (actions detrimental to stock car racing); 12-4-Q (car, car parts, components and/or equipment used do not conform to NASCAR rules); and 12.8.1C (right rear quarter panel height did not meet the required specification; too high in post race inspection) of the 2008 NASCAR rule book. As a result, Newman and car owner Roger Penske have been penalized 25 championship driver and 25 championship owner points, respectively. Crew chief Roy McCauley has been fined $25,000 and placed on NASCAR probation until Dec. 31.

My knee jerk reaction was 'why not the standard C.O.T. 100 point penalty'? But I didin't have to search for long to realize that there has already been a precedence set in a C.O.T. race last season. Flash back to the fall Dover race last season and you will see:

The #99 Ford driven by Edwards was found to be too low in the right rear area, which violated Sections 12-4-A (actions detrimental to stock car racing); 12-4-Q (car, car parts, components and/or equipment not conforming to NASCAR rules); and 20-12.8.1C (failed to meet minimum rear car heights) of NASCAR Car of Tomorrow Technical Bulletin #3 dated April 10, 2007. In addition, those infractions have resulted in a $25,000 fine for Edwards’ crew chief Bob Osborne, plus a penalty of 25 car owner championship points for Roush Fenway Racing. Osborne also has been placed on probation until Dec. 31.

So it appears that if Nascar cannot have reasonable suspicion that the violation was intentional for a height violation, then the standard penalty will be 25 points. (and the above)

I don't see a problem with that.

1 comment:

Charlie Turner said...

I had forgotten about the #99 violation. I agree with you. I had expected the 100/100/100 penalty, but this makes sense now.