Subscribe to this blog's feed« Who’s the real crazy old man? | Main | DEI/MB2, Deal or No Deal? »
June 05, 2006
No relief in sight for this issue
By DAVID GREEN
Much of the debate going into this weekend's Neighborhood Excellence 400 was about whether the injured Tony Stewart should have to start the race, should be allowed to start the race, should be permitted to race, and so forth and so on. Let's take a look at how the system works and discuss another angle.
Let's consider not who should arbitrarily receive credit, but who has earned it.
According to the rules as they now apply, Stewart needed only to take the green flag in order to receive credit for the car's finish. As it turned out, he got credit for finishing 25th, two laps off the pace, even though he drove only 38 laps before he was replaced in the cockpit by Ricky Rudd.
Too bad Rudd couldn't have won the race, just to force debate of NASCAR's policy about drivers of record.
Had that happened, who would have deserved recognition as the winning driver -- Stewart or Rudd? Smoke would have gotten credit. But who would have deserved credit?
Put yourself in Stewart's Nomex shoes for a moment. Is this victory one that you deserve and can really celebrate, with anything resembling the gusto with which Stewart exulted after his Pepsi 400, Brickyard 400 and other wins last year?
First, let's acknowledge that all wins are not created equal. They all count the same, but some of them are simply more satisfying than others, and we all know it. A win in one of the sport's "majors" is more meaningful than that one in various other events on the schedule. A hard-fought win surely is more satisfying than one that falls into your lap because of someone else's mistake or misfortune; likewise, one of those magical days when everything is perfect and you absolutely, completely kick everybody else's butt is gratifying, too.
A victory that comes after somebody else drove your car 362 out of 400 laps would simply have to rank at the bottom of the list.
Once upon a time, in various racing series including NASCAR, credit was given in some way or the other (and championship points, too) when multiple drivers put together a winning effort. Two of the most significant examples are the 1924 Indianapolis 500, won by L.L. Corum and Joe Boyer, and the 1941 Indy race, won by Floyd Davis and Mauri Rose.
In each case, the two drivers each had significant contributions in putting the car into victory circle. Listing them as co-winners seems to me the right thing to do.
There should be some way to recognize everyone's legitimate contribution, not merely designate someone as NASCAR's present system does -- especially in the event of a victory (unlikely as that might be nowadays).
Raise your hand if you've heard of Raymond "Friday" Hassler, a blue-collar short-track racer, a little guy, an independent in the days when there was such a thing in NASCAR racing. Before he was killed at Daytona in 1972, Friday made it to victory lane one time -- at Bristol, on July 11, 1971. Trivia buffs may recognize that as the Bristol race that, incredibly, went from start to finish without a caution flag. As a result, the winning average speed of 101.074 mph still stands, 35 years later.
Charlie Glotzbach is listed as the winner, but Hassler is the guy who took the checkered flag in the No. 3 Chevy Monte Carlo. One of six drivers who relieved others on a blistering hot day, Hassler drove most of the second half of the event.
Both drivers, not just Glotzbach, deserve recognition. As professorial actor John Houseman of the old Smith Barney television ad might have said, "They did it the old-fashioned way -- they earned it."
Instead, Hassler's career shows no victories to his credit. That's not quite right.
Perhaps we ought to place more emphasis on merit. Then, we could do away with ridiculous things like the Lucky Dog Award and guaranteed starting spots for 35 team owners.
And if we divided the championship points based on the number of laps completed by multiple drivers in a single car, perhaps controversies such as the one surrounding Stewart would go away, because there would be minimal incentive for an injured driver to make a token start in a race.
June 5, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
There ya go opening the can o'worms again. Doesn't really seem fair does it? Getting points for not working while the relief driver sweats it out. I guess it's based on NASCAR having no way to keep an injured racer out of the event. Giving him the points makes it easier to get him out of the car when "Option B" is having taped eyelids and velcro'd shifters, on the track, which may hazard that driver and other drivers. Maybe a medical review board is in order. Determining driver eligibility for the next race after racing injuries are sustained.
Is it fair...Nope
Will it stop...Probably not. It's born of toughness, stubborness and todays need to please the $$$ guys and make the final 10.
PS - Common Tony you could have paid Rudd a little more couldn't you? Other drivers had store bought heat shields for their feet, and there Rudd was meticulously cutting and taping one from a coffee cup. It didn't even look like a new cup.
Posted by: Keith | Jun 5, 2006 8:52:28 AM
DW said more than once this weekend, that an injured driver should not have to start the race just to get the points. If they can clear a driver TO race, they should be able to keep an injured driver out, and not penalize him/her.
A medical review board (along with a full-time "Safety Safari"), is an excellent idea.
Should Ricky receive recognition. Definitely. But in Ricky's case, he's not an "active" driver. If a driver replaced Tony who is currently participating in Cup, he should receive an equal amount of driver's points as Tony.
But as DW said, the current system is "old school." As much as the France family tries to sell the fact that they are the premier sport at this time, much of what goes on in NASCAR is old school. This is just another example.
Too bad Ricky got the speeding penalty. It could have been an interesting race otherwise.
Posted by: Shirley | Jun 5, 2006 9:08:23 AM
Well, this whole scenerio is played out by the fact that there are two points systems, one for the Owner and one for the drivers. Obviously, the Driving championship is the coveted price. However, if it was a single points system, Tony would not have had to get in the car...and maybe you'd see interesting scenerios where a guy who was already locked in the chase set out a race or two.
On the flip side of that, if there was only one point system, say a guy who was in the chase really sucked at road racing. An Owner could put a ringer in and wouldn't be a points penalty against winning the championship.
But, at the end of the day, the system works. Drivers want to a win a championship by driving every race, not having a sub for tracks he's not good at it. The system works like it is. Tony made the effort and started the car. If he wins the championship, he still drove in every race.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 5, 2006 1:00:34 PM
I don't think that it is a bad rule. NASCAR and Stewart's doctors had cleared him to race. The decision was made for Stewart not to run the entire race in order to give his shoulder more time to heal. Had NASCAR not permitted relief drivers, then Stewart would have probably raced the entire 400 miles.
IMO, Stewart earned a lot of respect at Dover. He was in obvious pain. However, when Stewart was in the #20 car, he was wheeling it! Man, Stewart sure did not drive like he was injured. However, all we had to do was look at the pain on Stewart's face when he exited the car to know the pain that he was actually in. I hope that Stewart has a quick recovery because, whether you love him or hate him, you have to agreee that the racing is more exciting when Stewart is in the race.
Posted by: Labonte Fan | Jun 5, 2006 1:04:30 PM
What are all the Smoke-haters going to whine about next week when Tony drives the whole race at Pocono?
Posted by: RCSanders | Jun 5, 2006 3:04:49 PM
Oh, and another thing:
I wasn't around the blogs when Junior had to have Truex replace him at Sonoma because of a burn on his chin... was everyone up in arms over that one, too, or was it ok because it was an Earnhardt?
Posted by: RCSanders | Jun 5, 2006 3:06:31 PM
Loudon... sorry. The burn happened at Sonoma.
Posted by: RCSanders | Jun 5, 2006 3:07:21 PM
Ricky Rudd replacing Tony Stewart was in no way an unfair advantage for Tony or JGR... Tony was moving forward much better than Ricky did after he entered the car. Tony gained something like 15 positions in 38 laps; Rudd wound up with a net gain of about 7 spots, but with a loss of two laps.
Here's something that *does* give teams an unfair advantage and needs to be stopped:
A car crashes out early in the race. 70 laps later, that car is back on the track, barely making minimum speed and running in everyone else's way for no other reason than to scuff tires for their teammates. The car is less safe than other cars on the track, having been wrecked and hastily repaired so as to get it back on the track and the teammates gain an unfair advantage by having the scuffed tires no one else has... everyone else is out there sliding around on sticker tires.
When you talk about unfair advantage, make sure what you're talking about is actually an advantage.
Posted by: RCSanders | Jun 5, 2006 3:55:10 PM
Raymond Hassler never questioned that he never got the win on his Winston Cup record; he knew and understood the rule on who gets the points. Glotzbach was the starter and so he deserved the win on his record.
By your apparant logic, David Green, Darrell Waltrip should be listed as winner of the 1977 Talladega 500 because he relieved Donnie Allison in the final quarter of the race and took the flag first.
As far as what to do about injured drivers, the solution is to bench them for two or more races - no points, no laps, sit out and heal up, then come back.
Posted by: Mike Daly | Jun 5, 2006 4:08:59 PM
RCS,
You're talking about Vickers, and like the Driver replacement it's been done forever. NASCAR says you have to make the minimum speed...He did. End of story.
Posted by: Keith | Jun 5, 2006 5:18:40 PM
If a driver is medically cleared to race, then NASCAR would have a legal battle on its hand if it decided to 'bench' an injured driver for 2 races.
Posted by: Mel | Jun 5, 2006 6:13:49 PM
Hey Keith didn't Ol' Morgan Shepard get into trouble this year for scuffin' tires in for other teams?...I guess I'll have to ask ol Shep when I see him next.
Posted by: Tbfka# 5 | Jun 5, 2006 8:03:14 PM
Keith, if NASCAR did not give the injured driver the full points, that would deter the injured driver from making the token start. If he's able to gut it out and go the distance, good for him; if the injury hinders his performance or causes him to miss a race or two, that's just his bad luck. My point was that a driver who makes a token start just to capitalize on the present rule doesn't really do all that much to earn whatever credit the current system gives him.
Shirley, in many cases I feel "old school" should not be considered a derogatory or negative description. It would definitely be "old school" to somehow recognize the contribution of relief drivers, especially when one plays a role in a victory, and I think that would be a good thing. I am not so much in favor of D.W.'s recommendation for a medical micromanagement system. I think it's simple enough to determine that a driver should not be allowed to compete (suffering from a concussion, for example); in the absence of such a prohibition, it should be up to the individual driver to decide if he's able to go or not.
RCSanders, I haven't heard any whining about the Stewart-Rudd arrangement and I certainly did not criticize either of them in what I wrote. Smoke and Ricky are two of my personal favorite folks and nobody did anything at Dover that deserves any criticism or justifies any whining. I don't remember any controversy about the Earnhardt incident either. I would suggest that Rudd did a much better job in his relief role than his finishing position suggests. The pit road speeding penalty is what cost him the two laps and as many as a dozen positions in the final rundown.
I have no problem with a driver scuffing tires after his car is out of contention, as long as he maintains a minimum level of speed. I'm not sure if that really gives anybody all that much of an advantage or not. Anyone who feels that is the case should feel free to lobby for a rule prohibiting it.
Mike Daly, I'm satisfied that Friday was intelligent enough that he was not shocked for failing to receive recognition for his role in Charlie Glotzbach's victory in 1971 at Bristol. Friday was a fairly bright fellow and the rule was quite clear then, as it is now. All I'm suggesting is that he, and other relief drivers, deserve better than that, as previous systems (including NASCAR rules of an earlier time) provided to them. Yes, my "apparent logic" would call for some kind of recognition of the role played by Darrell Waltrip in his relief role for Donnie Allison at Talladega. Allison rightly is credited as the winning driver, because he made more than a token appearance in the cockpit of the car during the event. Waltrip's role in the matter is ignored by the record book. Finally, as much as it probably surprises both of us, I agree with the salient point in your final comment. If a driver is hurt and cannot compete, that's the breaks. That does not mean he cannot contend for a championship, especially under the NASCAR system that so richly rewards consistency over victory. I do not agree with you that the driver ought to be "benched for two races," to use your one-size-fits-all phrasing. If there's a clear medical reason why a driver should be denied clearance to race for a specific period of time, that should be (and, as far as I'm aware, is) enforced. I think the policy some other sanctioning bodies utilize -- requiring the injured driver to demonstrate that he's capable of exiting the cockpit in a prescribed amount of time -- has merit, just to protect the driver. The diminishing size of window openings in the past couple of years has made it a challenge for a healthy driver to get in and out quickly, and that only makes things more difficult for a driver with an injured shoulder, such as Smoke, or with even more serious injuries such as those suffered by the late Davey Allison after a tap from D.W. sent him into a violent crash at Pocono.
Posted by: David Green | Jun 6, 2006 12:47:03 AM
I just don't understand why this is such a hot topic NOW. It hasn't been before. It looks to me like it's a media thang, something to write about.
Didn't have this hype when Dale Jr. was replaced, now did we?
Posted by: TexasCJ | Jun 6, 2006 10:23:07 AM
Tbfka#5,
In 2003, Ol' Morgan made headlines for making repeated and unnecessary pit stops during a race to scuff tires to SELL to other teams. That's a bit of a difference I think. NASCAR has ended that by maintaining ownership of the tires.
Posted by: Keith | Jun 6, 2006 6:04:29 PM
Post a comment
Advertisements
