Just want to know everyones views on this before I tell you the view of the AKA.
Per the manual, the only penalty that can be issued against an official (in the event of a complaint against an official is raised) is a suspension from officiating for a period of time, or a written reprimand.
However, if the official in question has a Racing Licence......(given he/she is not competing at said event) can the rules be applied that a licence holder must abide by the rules at all times, and have a penalty issued against his race licence (IE Suspension from racing) for an action made while officiating??????
Comments12
Hi John,
My first impression is NO. he is NOT a competitor at that point in time.
Same in reverse if he has a race licence and gets pinged for something only his race licence is suspended not his officials licence.
I see the two are seperate licences and hence both cannot be suspended at thwe same time for the same breach of the rules.
But given your opening sentence in your post your about to tell us the opposite???
Probably.......
But my question is there are two rules..... If you apply one (suspend a race licence eg.) then you are disregarding the other, and vice a versa.
My view would be that you apply the rule that applies to the situation, not one or the other, or both, or whatever you feel suits.....hence thequestion.
My opinion is racing incidents attract racing penalties, officiating incidents attract officiating penalties. Plain and simple.
An official does not HAVE to have a racing licence to officiate, ergo there is a distinction already in place.
The "competition licence " is subject to competion rules ...whilst in competition ...!!! frikkin simple ....and you actually sign a document that you will comply with the NCR's ..(National comnpetition rules) ... unlike a competition licence for which you need to qualify and be observed to upgrade in order to take part from somewhere else other than the back of the field ...an Officials "licence" is easily obtained , you get that by just holding your hand up , no exam , no knowledge of the rules , no tests to see if you can comprehend anything , and if you have mates in places you get upgraded to level 1 and nepotisism becomes the norm..!! .and if you disobey the rules or invent your own or even assault the competitor you get rewarded with another appointment and you dont get penalised ...
The answer to your question is NO ..they are two different licences and are not connected, they are to be treated seperate as too different identities, and they have different rules for penalty and even the application of complaint and penalty ..
But what did you expect ...integrity - honesty - ???? your dreamin !
Hey,
Firstly, I think the amusing part about this discussion is you have all touched based on the agreement that they are seperate licenses, i totally agree with this and I think its a plain stupid of the aka to even comprehend that they would action this.
Secondly, how much winging goes on when they dont get officials to assist at meetings? Heaps right? Well the strain and pressures of gaining this assistance at race meetings just got exhausted even more, people do not want to jepodise there passion and ability to steer billy karts as opposed to political b/s when officialing.... NFI !
Regards,
Benjamini
on November 16, 2010 at 14:06
Couldn't have said it better Benjamini!
Benjamini Kirkbride said:Hey,Firstly, I think the amusing part about this discussion is you have all touched based on the agreement that they are seperate licenses, i totally agree with this and I think its a plain stupid of the aka to even comprehend that they would action this.Secondly, how much winging goes on when they dont get officials to assist at meetings? Heaps right? Well the strain and pressures of gaining this assistance at race meetings just got exhausted even more, people do not want to jepodise there passion and ability to steer billy karts as opposed to political b/s when officialing.... NFI !Regards,Benjamini
It is not as straight forward as that, I believe, and maybe needs some clarification?
John, if you are referring to the incident with Luke ??
I believe he was a Starter on the day?
Therefore, he was a club official (albeit listed on the supp regs as an official) he does not have any AKA officials licence and is not required to attend any schools to maintain any required standard (as do Stewards and C of C. )
So like a weight/grid/noise monitor/marshal there is no ability for the AKA to impose a penalty on that person........unless they have a licence.
As Ralph well knows and tried to implement a parents licence to deal with the ugly parent syndrome.
A competitors licence then becomes an avenue for the AKA to impose some form of penalty on the person directly for their indiscretion.
I guess the argument is not whether they were right to give Luke a penalty for what he did after leaving the track - but as the holder of a licence, he certainly becomes vulnerable to AKA jurisdiction (IMO)
We have certainly seen in the past a licence holder (at the track) penalized even though they were not racing on the day.
That’s what I think anyway : )
Hi Ian,
I was assuming John was talking about the officials that require licencing eg d stewards and CCs etc not the sundry workers like you listed.
But as Ben has said it will make those guys who aren't racing who think they might help their club out one day think twice about helping them if their licnces are at risk if they stuff up. But how often in sport do we see officials get charged, ???? we have some notaebale egsample lately and nothing happens.
Ian,
Your interpretation is the same of the AKA.....even though you are not racing....we will issue a penalty against your racing licence (IE Suspend you from racing). Hence, Luke will never offer assistance to a club again......and I would suggest that anybody serious about their racing....think very hard about offering assistance to any club in any official capacity....
Yep,
Pretty sad really isn’t John!
The concept is right (again IMO), but the handling in this instance leaves a lot to be desired
There are some who only know how to wield a heavy stick when it fact they should embrace the following:
“When I get less than I expect – the first question I should ask is...”
Did I give enough instruction?>
>
>
The easy way out is to blame the individual when often it is the system or the process that is at fault.
I am sure Luke realizes that FaceBook is not the place to vent, particularly when you have been in a position of authority.
To suspend him from racing for an incident unrelated to racing, makes one wonder about the thought processes involved.
But in the wrap up I agree – it is extremely successful in ensuring no further participation from licensed drivers.
cheers
Ian
John Lane said:Ian,Your interpretation is the same of the AKA.....even though you are not racing....we will issue a penalty against your racing licence (IE Suspend you from racing). Hence, Luke will never offer assistance to a club again......and I would suggest that anybody serious about their racing....think very hard about offering assistance to any club in any official capacity....
Ian,
He has certainly learnt a valuable lesson, and is very remorseful (even without the belting I gave him).
But my point is, I talked him out of racing to help (they could not get enough people to help). Potentially, there was not going to be a meeting, so him not racing let both Luke and myself assist - two people they wouldn't have had. My concern is not the fact he got belted for what he did, but they could have taken him out of the supercheap series and the state titles....all because he came to help.
As I said, won't happen again......(and now the AKA is refusing to hear his appeal.....more to come on that)
Yeah, I agree entirely here. As I said at the time, I thought Luke acted poorly, but all the same he did so as an official who was freely volunteering his time so that others could race!
Penalising someone's race licence under those conditions is sure-fire method to ensure that no-one with a current race licence will ever volunteer to do anything, thus widening the gulf between "us" and "them". Lunacy.