IRBs

[oz98cobra]

Since the contact between myself and Chris in R1 on Saturday, I have grown more uncomfortable with the way things were handled after the incident by the IRB. This was my first ever (and hopefully last ever) contact, so I was not very familiar with the process - but from my point of view right now, the process sucks. Where I come from there is a term for the way it was handled - it's called a Kangaroo Court. The guys turn up with a Contact report written by the other driver in the heat of the moment, look at the "forensic evidence", take a cursory glance at the small screen video evidence, and levy the penalty - immediately - without even giving me the opportunity to submit my contact report, or reviewing the video evidence in more detail as I requested.

I hear things like "you had to go for that pass - it wasn't a bone head move" - and to Chris "you may have had position at the time of impact, so maybe you had a right to be there but you probably shouldn't have" - and that "it is one of these incidents that is really hard to call". I even got told that "unofficially, you probably should have stayed on the gas so that the point of impact was in your favor" - yes seriously! (the impact point was just behind the front door but in front of the rear tire - it would have been further foward if I had not back pedalled - which was the only evasive action I could take when I am already turning right at the limits of adhesion - I had a right to be there and Chris had an obligation to give me racing room).

Despite the fact that it was obviously a borderline thing as to who was at fault or indeed if it was just a racing incident as I believe it should have been ruled, a hasty decision was made in mere minutes and without reviewing all the facts or taking the time to really look at the video evidence including the entire lap beforehand as I requested be done. I was also told that the fact that Chris got his contact report in before me inlfuenced the decision - please show me in the CCRs where it says this should be the case - that is daft and the CCRs suggests all evidence should be reviewed.

Understand that I have no problem with Chris' actions either on the track or after the incident - indeed Chris himself thought the penalty a little harsh. My point here is I really think that when acting as an IRB our directors need to be a little more careful and thoughtful when reviewing incidents and levying penalties that may well have very large consequences further down the track.

We did not take this to Clifton - as I said it was my first contact, and I was not all that familiar with the procedures and by the time I read the CCRs and saw the video on the big screen it was too late - but in hindsight we should have.

It may be too late for us to reverse this decision, and I don't have any sour grapes against our series directors (on the contrary, overall I think the guys do an awesome job) - take it as a suggestion not a criticism - but hopefully by bringing this up it may help another competitor facing a similar situation in future.

[GlennCMC70]

Darron, you are wrong on several accounts. feel free to contact myself or Al or David offline if you want to talk about this more.

[oz98cobra]

I'm not arguing who was at fault here, or the penalty - that is subjective and this is not the forum to do so - I am raising the issue that I am not comfortable with the way it was handled. I deliberately posted it here so that it can be commented on and either the process improved in future, or others (especially rookies) can learn about it - hopefully both. So please, if I am wrong, lets talk about it here - but also understand that we are talking about my perception that this was not handled as well as it could have or should have been - so it's about changing perceptions and improving what we do not about being right or wrong.

[mitchntx]

After having been "recruited" into an IRB, let me say ...

There is great debate and discussion that goes on outside of the audience of most everyone. Both parties are interviewed and evidence is reviewed. Is it thorough? Another subjective call.

I was just as uncomfortable being ON the IRB as you, Darron, appear to be. It's not easy sorting through evidence, discussion, heat of the moment documents ... and then rendering a verdict.

The internal IRB discussion can be just as heated and just as emotional.

What I did take away is a healthy respect for those who make these calls. It's not easy, as amatuers, both on track and in "kangaroo court", to pass judgement on a competitor, a friend and sometimes a colleague.

Having been on the other side, it's also very easy to pass judgement on those weeding through mountains of data and a CCR to try and come up with a fair and just verdict.

All the while, these IRB participantss have their OWN cars to deal with. I never got a chance to fuel my car prior to the next race because of the IRB I sat on and wound up fuel starving for 5 laps.

The pale gray line keeps moving between "we're just amateurs" and "be professional".

In a perfect world, a day should be set aside whereby all the NASA officials, all involved parties and all witnesses convene. Here, evidence is submitted, witnesses are questioned, circumstances are pondered and then a verdict is rendered.

But in a real world, is that feasible at this level? No, of course not.

So, we work with what we have. If there is a better way, then by all means, make those suggestions.

But in reality, I just don't see how it can be any different.

[GlennCMC70]

the evidence you use to point out how it was done incorrect is in fact not true.
you should call one of use before leaving some of the comments above as they are. as it stands now, you have made some untrue comments about persons who did no such thing.
at this point in time i have not been contact to explain where i see Darron being incorrect.

[oz98cobra]

Mitch I appreciate and agree with most of your comments - but to assume that we cannot improve the IRB procedures within our group is nuts - of course we can improve - and just because of some of the things you mentioned, the way to improve surely is to review the way things were handled, after the race weekend when we do have time to look at things so that next time it might get handled a little better.

To start with, waiting to receive BOTH parties written reports would seem to be only fair, and when a competitor requests that the IRB look at the video again, then they should do so. I was also within earhsot of the very brief discussion that took place after they spoke to me and before "passing verdict". I can tell you it was no great debate.

[Todd Covini]

I don't have time to read the entire thread right now, but I got the gist after the first paragraph.

See CCR section 17.5- Got 30 min. after the race to file a protest/RFA. (The car/driver that chose to have an incident review followed the procedures.)

See CCR section 26- Appendix A Description of on-track incidents

See CCR section 27.0- "Kangaroo Court" Guidelines

http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/ccr.pdf

Since I was called out, it was me that made the "unofficial comment" Daron referred to and it was during our "woulda, coulda, shoulda" discussion. Let's not take things out of context. (i.e.- "if you kept your foot in it you might have made it past him, there wouldn't have been an incident. That didn't happen, so now we are here.")

Monday nite quarterbacking is always tough, but call me if you want to discuss further.

-=- Todd

PS- The Race Director can not be everywhere on race weekends and so he has delegated initial IRB's to the series directors. All cases/findings are reviewed with the Race Director.

[AI#97]

See CCR section 17.5- Got 30 min. after the race to file a protest/RFA. (The car/driver that chose to have an incident review followed the procedures.)

This is a must so that the grid positions can be determined for the next race that might be only an hour out at times...and to generate the grid assignments to turn into control.

The process probably sucks to be a part of on either side of the table...I am not looking forward to my first one that is for sure...

[Al Fernandez]

Waiting until paperwork is submitted only makes sense if the paperwork says something different than what the driver's moulth says. :wink:

Darron, I can appreciate your position. From a process perspective, we determine participants (in this case Glenn and I, last time it was Mitch, Adam, and myself), we interview drivers, we look at evidence, and we discuss/argue until we reach concensus or decide to punt. In this case we reached concensus fairly quickly. If its relatively straight forward/minor we present to the drivers, then inform the race director. If it is not minor, or there is a strong penalty, or less than complete agreement whatever we propose the solution to the race director and get concensus with him before presenting to the drivers.

All decisions can be appealed, the process is in the rules.

The process itself is pretty good, usually what is spotty are the players and the available evidence. Maybe we should make Matt a permanent IRB member :wink:

[Todd Covini]

OK...I've gone back and read the entire thread and now know what you are seeking, Daron. (candid feedback on the process)

As Al stated, I really do think the process is fairly well defined in the CCR. What would help a great deal is if all racers read, learned and knew Appendix A of the CCR which describes each of the types of incidents.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic and offering the same objective info for all to help improve the IRB process. (There was some method to my madness in playing with toy cars at the driver's meeting.)

Here's my stab at improving the process for all involved:
a) All racers should read & understand who is at fault in each of the CCR App. A scenarios and they will make better on track decisions.
b) If racers are involved in contact, they should all file body contact forms immediately and submit them to their series director. (At Nationals, failure to do so can result in an automatic DQ...ask a few here about their experience.)
c) Series Directors should have body contact/ RFA forms readily available. It's BS when there's a reqmt to fill out a form but no-one can provide it.
d) When filling out your contact form, racers should cite the CCR reference cases to support their claim as to what happened at who they believe is at fault. (Helps give a starting point to the discussion and something to verify in data collection.)

All the above should make the IRB go smoothly and minimize the data mining. It's a tough job, but someone has got to do it.

I appreciate Al, Glenn & who-ever else for their time & efforts in doing these.

As NASA Texas continues to grow, my new role will be to coach other series directors in following this process and am striving to ensure that each series works things out. Both Clifton and I had a number of issues (not just body contact) throughout the event such as this that needed attention. Big picture, we need a preliminary IRB to be established by each series and findings reported up to the race director for approval.

Hope this helps Daron!

-=- Todd