Head2Head: Fair play

By NASCAR.COM
September 26, 2007
02:59 PM EDT

type size: + -

This week's hot-button topic focuses on the penalty NASCAR levied against Carl Edwards and the No. 99 team for failing post-race inspection at Dover.

Edwards won the race, but his car was deemed two low on the right-rear. On Tuesday Edwards was docked 25 driver points, crew chief Bob Osborne was fined $25,000, and Roush Fenway Racing was penalized 25 owner points.

The biggest issue, obviously, is points. The penalty dropped Edwards from third at just three points from the lead all the way to sixth, 28 points behind.

The team plans to appeal the penalty, claiming the rule makes no sense and that it was unfair to penalize a Chase driver the same as a non-Chase driver (read more).

Read both sides of the argument and then weigh in with your take.

Was the penalty assessed to Carl Edwards unfair?


NO	YES
Roush Racing officials argue that Carl Edwards' 25-point penalty for a car that failed post-race inspection at Dover is unfair, because the percentage of points taken away is greater when compared to the potential points remaining. There are fewer races left to make up that deficit, they claim, which is more of a handicap against a Chase contender than it would have been against Kyle Busch at New Hampshire for a similar infraction, for instance, before the points were reset. So under that line of thinking, the most severe penalty NASCAR could impose would be a 1-point penalty after Homestead, since no more points can be accrued. But that doesn't make any sense, does it? The 100 points taken away from Michael Waltrip at Daytona to start the season were definitely more costly to that team than the one imposed on Kurt Busch after the first Dover race, even though Waltrip's penalty occured with many more potential points remaining. The inherent problem with using percentages is the relative context. A smaller initial value will always create a much large percentage change. The percentage difference between 1 and 2 is significantly greater than 499 and 500, even though the additive difference is 1. Let's say I walk into a candy store with my good buddy Bill Gates. If I only have $5 in my pocket, that 50-cent candy bar is going to cost me a much greater percentage of my net worth than Bill's. But that doesn't change the price of the candy bar, does it? It's still 50 cents, no matter who comes through the door. It's the fundamental difference between perception and reality. So even though the perception of the No. 99 team is that they should be cut some sort of break because "they're in the Chase and have more to lose," the reality is that a 25-point penalty is still a 25-point penalty, no matter in which of the 36 races it occurs. I have yet to see a football referee take into consideration time remaining on the clock when marking off a penalty. A 15-yard penalty -- whether it's in the first quarter or the two-minute warning -- remains the same distance, even if it may have a different effect on the eventual outcome of the game. If NASCAR has been consistent in its interpretation of the rules, which in this instance appears to be the case, then the folks at Roush need to quit playing the percentages. • Mark Aumann, NASCAR.COM	Roush Fenway Racing president Geoff Smith has every right to be ticked off about the 25-point penalty assessed to Edwards for failing post-race inspection last Sunday at Dover International Speedway. While he might as well put that appeal pen away -- no one ever wins those things -- Smith brought up some valid points when he complained publicly about the penalty assessed for Edwards' No. 99 Ford being too low in the post-race inspection following his win in the Dodge Dealers 400. Smith's main point of contention is that a 25-point penalty for a Chase driver is 250 percent more damaging than a similar penalty against a non-Chase driver. Although this reporter's personal track record of attempting to do math in one of these arguments isn't good, Smith's logic struck a chord. Plus if the math proves to be wrong, Smith can be the scapegoat this time. Chase drivers compete for a total of 1,950 points, based on the fact that a driver can earn a maximum of 195 points over the 10 Chase races. In the first 26 races of the season, all drivers competed for a total of 5,070 points. Do the math. Smith did -- and didn't at all like what his calculator spat out in the end. Of course in Smith's case it comes off as sour grapes, as Edwards dropped from third to sixth in the Chase standings because of the penalty. But he's right. Furthermore, the rule makes no sense in the first place. It was written mainly with restrictor-plate races in mind -- races where teams historically have tried to make the rear of the car as low as legally possible to reduce aerodynamic drag. That basic physics lesson didn't even apply at Dover, a track where teams look for more downforce. One of the ways that can be accomplished is by raising, not lowering, the rear end. So why would Edwards' team intentionally risk breaking a rule by cheating when it wouldn't even help him win the race? Also, it appears that Edwards' car failed post-race inspection only because teammate Greg Biffle gave him a couple of congratulatory bumps after the checkered flag flew. Pretty much any way you look at this one, Edwards got screwed and common sense took another leave of absence from the powers-that-be at NASCAR headquarters. • Joe Menzer, NASCAR.COM

YES

Roush Racing officials argue that Carl Edwards' 25-point penalty for a car that failed post-race inspection at Dover is unfair, because the percentage of points taken away is greater when compared to the potential points remaining.

There are fewer races left to make up that deficit, they claim, which is more of a handicap against a Chase contender than it would have been against Kyle Busch at New Hampshire for a similar infraction, for instance, before the points were reset.

So under that line of thinking, the most severe penalty NASCAR could impose would be a 1-point penalty after Homestead, since no more points can be accrued.

But that doesn't make any sense, does it? The 100 points taken away from Michael Waltrip at Daytona to start the season were definitely more costly to that team than the one imposed on Kurt Busch after the first Dover race, even though Waltrip's penalty occured with many more potential points remaining.

The inherent problem with using percentages is the relative context. A smaller initial value will always create a much large percentage change. The percentage difference between 1 and 2 is significantly greater than 499 and 500, even though the additive difference is 1.

Let's say I walk into a candy store with my good buddy Bill Gates. If I only have $5 in my pocket, that 50-cent candy bar is going to cost me a much greater percentage of my net worth than Bill's. But that doesn't change the price of the candy bar, does it? It's still 50 cents, no matter who comes through the door.

It's the fundamental difference between perception and reality.

So even though the perception of the No. 99 team is that they should be cut some sort of break because "they're in the Chase and have more to lose," the reality is that a 25-point penalty is still a 25-point penalty, no matter in which of the 36 races it occurs.

I have yet to see a football referee take into consideration time remaining on the clock when marking off a penalty. A 15-yard penalty -- whether it's in the first quarter or the two-minute warning -- remains the same distance, even if it may have a different effect on the eventual outcome of the game.

If NASCAR has been consistent in its interpretation of the rules, which in this instance appears to be the case, then the folks at Roush need to quit playing the percentages.

• Mark Aumann, NASCAR.COM

Roush Fenway Racing president Geoff Smith has every right to be ticked off about the 25-point penalty assessed to Edwards for failing post-race inspection last Sunday at Dover International Speedway.

While he might as well put that appeal pen away -- no one ever wins those things -- Smith brought up some valid points when he complained publicly about the penalty assessed for Edwards' No. 99 Ford being too low in the post-race inspection following his win in the Dodge Dealers 400.

Smith's main point of contention is that a 25-point penalty for a Chase driver is 250 percent more damaging than a similar penalty against a non-Chase driver.

Although this reporter's personal track record of attempting to do math in one of these arguments isn't good, Smith's logic struck a chord. Plus if the math proves to be wrong, Smith can be the scapegoat this time.

Chase drivers compete for a total of 1,950 points, based on the fact that a driver can earn a maximum of 195 points over the 10 Chase races. In the first 26 races of the season, all drivers competed for a total of 5,070 points.

Do the math. Smith did -- and didn't at all like what his calculator spat out in the end. Of course in Smith's case it comes off as sour grapes, as Edwards dropped from third to sixth in the Chase standings because of the penalty.

But he's right. Furthermore, the rule makes no sense in the first place.

It was written mainly with restrictor-plate races in mind -- races where teams historically have tried to make the rear of the car as low as legally possible to reduce aerodynamic drag.

That basic physics lesson didn't even apply at Dover, a track where teams look for more downforce. One of the ways that can be accomplished is by raising, not lowering, the rear end.

So why would Edwards' team intentionally risk breaking a rule by cheating when it wouldn't even help him win the race?

Also, it appears that Edwards' car failed post-race inspection only because teammate Greg Biffle gave him a couple of congratulatory bumps after the checkered flag flew.

Pretty much any way you look at this one, Edwards got screwed and common sense took another leave of absence from the powers-that-be at NASCAR headquarters.

• Joe Menzer, NASCAR.COM