Note, This post is a discussion of rules and does not address the facts of the case, that should be the job of the jury. I am also not bashing or putting down the efforts of any party, especially the contest director. In our sport we have the disadvantage of needing to get involved parties to CD. We have no pool of people who *only* direct contests. What would baseball be like if they had to use players as umpires? I applaud the work of *everyone* involved. My ongoing discussion of this topic is to work toward doing better in the future, not to try and change the past. In order to improve we must accept that there is room to improve and that doing so is a good thing. Jim Cubbage wrote: > > I couldn't agree more. This argument is a true waste of time. It is NOT a waste of time, rules are part and parcel of contests. Any discussion that adds to the understanding of the rules is a good thing. You MUST understand the rules to win, especially in a rule intensive area like F3B. Ever been to a sailboat race? The people who win tend to carry a rule book with them everywhere and study the rules at every chance. They also review and argue past cases to better understand how the rule is likely to be inforced (or not inforced) in as race. How about NASCAR? Those people study every letter of the book and every ruling of the officials. They do have the advantage of having professional officials who do nothing except enforce and improve the rules. The officials have no stake whatsoever in the outcome of any race. > It is like saying you get in a boxing match with > someone where they had one hand tied behind their back, then complaining > that you lost because they weren't using both hands!!!!! Not quite. If the repair is not legal under the rules then letting the plane fly is like letting a boxer that has been counted out answer the next bell. > I mean if you are going to beat the guy, do it on the field (or in the air), This is an argument that bothers me. If someone is not qualified to be in the contest do you let them fly anyway and say, "come on, just beat them in the air?" > don't try and take something away from a guy based on a gray technicality. The reason it is a grey technicality is that the rules are not clear, or are not being inforced uniformly as written. Without rules and consistent inforcement you have chaos. > Afterall, the purpose of the competition was to send the best team to > represent the USA. If a guy can crash his plane and still manage to put > something together to fly and still make the team ... more power to him. So true. > Personally, I would rather beat a competitor on their best day than by > beating them on their worst. Give it a rest!!! But you gotta take the chips as they fall. Why are so many people so ready to toss the rule out the window, or take a very lax interpretation in this case but were hard line on some other people who were not allowed to hold a qualifing contest? Please let there be consistent application of the rules for everybody. > GO TEAM USA!!!! Absolutely! > > Jim Cubbage > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [RCSE] F3B Rule Violation!!! > > In a message dated 9/8/00 1:55:47 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I think if everyone on this exchange understood the exact violation, we > > could make a better decision about this issue. > > According to the CD of the contest and the Rules Jury (who review the > protests), there was no violation, and that is the only real decision that > matters. Anything else is gossip about the vague nature of this very gray > part of the rule book. Wasn't the protest denied for being too late even though it was lodged while the contest was still underway? As I understand it the protest was thrown out on a *technicality* even though there is lots of grey in this area also. The FAI Sporting Code says a protest must be filled immediately but does not say what this really means. It also says a protest must be in writing so there must be time to write it up. Also the AMA rules have a three day time for protests that concern things like team selections. When in doubt (ANY doubt) the protest should go to the jury so that all the facts and evidence can be examined and a clear judgement made. This is the basis of American justice, that the *process* is served. Going through the motions also preserves the evidence and record so that later reviews have something to work with beyond heresay. Remember folks, this is not your monthly club contest, it is the team selection. A higher standard really should apply. Any time there is a big argument about the meaning and intent of a rule it is an indication that the rule is unclear and needs to be clarified, simplified or both. Example; "A repaired plane must be at least 90% (or whatever number) original materials." This would be a rule that is much easier to enforce, either the plane meets the requirement or it doesn't. What happens at the big HLG contest to planes that have wings that are a millimeter too long? They either get trimmed before the contest or they don't fly. Good rules are like this, either you comply or you don't. There is no need for long discussions as to what is really required. Weekend quarterbacking is a fact of life. We all do it, at least I have yet to meet the person who doesn't. Arguing the point is not so much about bashing DP but more about asking, "How do we do it better in the future?" Depending on who is talking, DP pushed the rules to the screeching point, or beyond. Actually DP, his team and others did, but he caught a break and made the team. There is no real chance of changing the results but we can work to make the rules clearer and easier to understand for *future* contests. michael N6CHV AMA 77292 (in central FL) RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
