Indy Racing League Team Green, Inc. Appeal Decision :: Official site of the Indianapolis 500

Wednesday, July 3, 2002

INDY RACING LEAGUE

TEAM GREEN, INC. APPEAL

DECISION

Ladies IMS Triblend Silver Shimmer Tee.

Ladies Indianapolis Motor Speedway Triblend Silver Shimmer Tee.

INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION OF THE ISSUES UNDER APPEAL:

On the 199^th lap of the 2002 Indianapolis 500 mile race (the "Race"), an accident occurred in Turn Two, resulting in the IRL Officials calling for a yellow caution period. The IRL Officials determined that Car #3, driven by Helio Castroneves of Penske Racing, Inc. ("Penske Racing"), was the leader of the Race at the time the yellow caution period commenced, and that Car #26, driven by Paul Tracy of Team Green, Inc. ("Team Green") was in second place.

Car #26 passed Car #3 on the 199^th lap. The IRL Officials ruled that the pass occurred after the yellow caution period had commenced. Team Green alleges that Car #26 passed Car #3 before the yellow caution period commenced.

The issues presented by the Appeal are:

1. Whether the determination by the IRL Officials is protestable or appealable, and if so,

2. Whether the IRL Officials properly determined that Car #3 was ahead of Car #26 at the commencement of the yellow caution period on lap #199.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY:

Background For Appeal

The 2002 Indianapolis 500 mile race was completed on May 26, 2002, and the results of the Race were posted that evening listing Car #3 as the winner. Team Green filed a Protest claiming that Car #26 was ahead of Car #3 at the commencement of the yellow caution period on lap #199, and that Car #26 won the Race. A copy of the Protest was provided to Penske Racing, the IRL Entrant of Car #3. The Protest hearing was held on May 27, 2002, and lasted approximately 2½ hours. At the hearing, each team was given an opportunity to provide information, state its position, and respond to the information and statements of the other team. Brian Barnhart ("Barnhart"), Vice President of Racing Operations of the Indy Racing League, presided over the Protest hearing. At 3:40 p.m. on May 27, 2002, Barnhart issued his decision denying the Team Green Protest.

On June 3, 2002, Team Green filed an Appeal of the denial of its Protest. On June 4, 2002, Penske Racing presented a written request that the Appeal be dismissed on the grounds that the decision by the IRL Officials being challenged by Team Green was not appealable. On June 7, 2002, I informed the teams that, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Indy Racing League, I would preside over the Appeal in accordance with the Rules and that the hearing on the Appeal was scheduled for June 17, 2002, at which time I would hear all issues presented by the teams. A subsequent request to delay the hearing date was denied.

Access To Information For Appeal

Team Green and Penske Racing each requested access to information from the IRL as part of their preparations for the Appeal hearing. Commencing on June 8, 2002, and continuing through June 16, 2002, the IRL made its information, data and personnel available to both Team Green and Penske Racing. Both teams were also given access to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway race track to take photographs, measurements, etc. The IRL made it clear that any proprietary information which was not owned by the IRL needed to be obtained from, and with the consent of, the owner of such information.[1] As a result, each team, led by its legal counsel, spent a considerable amount of time surveying the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, reviewing videos of the Race, and otherwise asking questions and reviewing data.

Appeal Hearing

The hearing on the Appeal commenced at 10:00 a.m. on June 17, 2002, and was completed at approximately 4:00 p.m. that day. In accordance with the Rule Book, each team was afforded the opportunity to present witnesses and exhibits, state its position, and respond to the witnesses, exhibits, and position presented by the other team. Each team was very well prepared, was represented by legal counsel, and professionally presented its position and the information and data which the team believed supported its position.

2002 INDY RACING LEAGUE RULE BOOK, INDY RACING LEAGUE 2002 HANDBOOK, ENTRANT LICENSES AND INDIANAPOLIS 500 ENTRIES:

As a condition of participation in the Indy Racing League, each team agrees to be bound by the terms of the IRL Rule Book. Relevant excerpts from the Rule Book, Indy Racing League 2002 Handbook, the Entrant Licenses and the Indianapolis 500 Entries are contained in the Appendix to this Decision.

POSITION OF TEAM GREEN:

1. Appealability of Decision by IRL Officials

Team Green asserts that there is no issue as to whether a Car was improperly passed during a yellow caution period because there is objective evidence (which Team Green refers to as an "observable fact") that the pass occurred before the commencement of the yellow caution period. Team Green further asserts that the commencement of a yellow caution period is not a judgment call because there is objective evidence of when the track yellow lights came on.

2. Determination of the Leader at the Commencement of the Yellow Caution Period

Team Green asserts that Car #26 was ahead of Car #3 at the time the track yellow lights came on, and that those lights should control. Team Green asserts that the radio call of the yellow caution period by Race Control and the display of the yellow dashboard lights are irrelevant. Team Green further asserts that the dashboard yellow light did not come on in Car #26 before it passed Car #3 (based on the testimony of Paul Tracy) or on Al Unser Jr.'s Car, and that Dario Franchitti testified that Car #26 passed Car #3 before his dashboard yellow lights came on. Team Green asserts that the dashboard yellow lights are not reliable, the timing is inconsistent from Car to Car, and that the only clear evidence of when a yellow light came on is the track yellow lights, noting that the telemetry data only shows when a signal was received by the Car, not when the lights came on. Team Green further asserts that the display of one of the yellow caution flags (the red flag with the yellow cross)[2] should be disregarded since it might have been displayed by the IRL Official in reaction to the call from the Turn Two IRL Official Observer, not in reaction to the call from Race Control. Finally, Team Green asserts that Car #26 completed 200 laps before Car #3, and that under Rule 7.17 Car #26 therefore won the Race.

POSITION OF PENSKE RACING:

1. Appealability of Decision by IRL Officials

Penske Racing asserts that the decision as to whether a Car passed another Car during a yellow caution period is specifically listed as not protestable or appealable under Rule 11.2(D)(2), and that the decision by the IRL Officials that Car #26 passed Car #3 during the yellow caution period fits squarely within that Rule. Penske Racing further asserts that the decision by the Officials as to the position of the Cars at the commencement of a yellow caution period is a judgment call, and as such is not subject to protest or appeal under Rule 11.2(D). Penske Racing analogizes this decision by the IRL Officials to a homeplate umpire in baseball calling balls and strikes, and to a basketball official calling a foul.

2. Determination of the Leader at the Commencement of the Yellow Caution Period

Penske Racing asserts that, even if this judgment call were appealable, the standard of review should be whether the IRL abused its discretion in making its decision. Penske Racing asserts that the IRL did not abuse its discretion, and that no one has even accused the IRL of abusing its discretion, let alone provided any evidence of such abuse. Penske Racing further asserts that, regardless of the standard employed, Car #3 was ahead of Car #26 at the commencement of the yellow caution period, based on Car #3 being ahead when the radio call was made by Race Control, when the red flag with the yellow cross was displayed, when the dashboard yellow light on Car #3 was activated, and at the last time line under green flag conditions.

[1] Penske Racing as well as other race teams did not want to provide certain of their proprietary information, and the teams involved in this Appeal ultimately agreed that such information would not be used by either of them in the Appeal.

[2] This flag is displayed at the commencement of a yellow caution period at the entrance of the pits.

FINDINGS OF FACT:

League Administration of Yellow Caution Periods and the Purpose of Rule 7.14

In order to put these issues in the proper context, it is important to keep in mind the purpose of the yellow caution system. The yellow caution system is designed for the safety of the drivers. That seems to have been lost in all of this. The system is designed to protect the drivers by identifying, as soon as possible, an unsafe track condition, and then notifying, as soon as possible, the teams and drivers of the unsafe track condition so that the drivers will cease racing as soon as they are notified of the unsafe track condition.

Consequently, the IRL has implemented multiple systems to minimize the time needed to identify an unsafe condition, and to then notify the drivers, taking into account the need for back up notification systems in the event of any system failure or delay. As a result, the IRL has essentially four methods of communicating a yellow caution period: (i) radio instructions (teams are required to monitor and follow instructions from Race Control); (ii) track yellow lights; (iii) mandatory dashboard yellow lights; and (iv) yellow flags, including the pit-in red flag with the yellow cross (which is displayed upon the commencement of a yellow caution period and signifies that the pits are closed). While these systems typically are initiated within a fraction of a second of each other, they are not synchronized because they can'tbe. Even if you could synchronize them, that would delay the notification and defeat the safety objective. The IRL Officials have repeatedly instructed participants that they are to react to the first notification they receive of a yellow caution period, and that is universally understood among IRL competitors. As a reminder, the IRL Officials instruct the drivers and crew chiefs in mandatory drivers meetings to obey all yellow caution period notices, specifically mentioning the radio call from Race Control, the dashboard yellow lights, the track yellow lights, and the yellow flags, including the red flag with the yellow cross.

As a practical matter, the IRL Officials will call several yellow caution periods by radio throughout a Race. The IRL Officials do not have the benefit of knowing precisely when the yellow flag is displayed, the track yellow lights are displayed, or when the dashboard yellow lights are displayed. The IRL Officials use their judgment in deciding the placement of the Cars at the time the yellow caution call is made, relying on direct visual observation and television monitors in Race Control. That is the only possible way to officiate a race, and the IRL has consistently followed this methodology since the league's inception.

2002 Indianapolis 500 Mile Race

The mandatory drivers meeting was held on the Thursday before the Race (Carburetion day). All three of Team Green's drivers and crew chiefs, and both of Penske Racing's drivers and crew chiefs, were in attendance. Additional members of Team Green and Penske Racing were also in attendance. At that meeting, Barnhart specifically stated that the drivers were to obey all yellow caution period instructions, including the track and dashboard yellow lights, the radio call from Race Control, and the yellow flag, including the red flag with the yellow cross.

When the accident occurred on lap #199 involving Car #34 and Car #91, Barnhart received a radio call from the Turn Two IRL Official Observer reporting the incident. Barnhart immediately asked "what have you got", and was told "accident in two". At this time Barnhart is watching the line feed of the ABC broadcast showing Car #3 ahead of Car #26. Barnhart immediately alerted Mel Harder ("Harder") in Race Control[1], stating "yellow, yellow, yellow, three is your leader," with Barnhart broadcasting over the director's channel. Harder immediately repeated "yellow, yellow, yellow, three is your leader" over the Race Control radio.

Following the Race, the IRL determined that Car #3 was ahead of Car #26 at the following times, and no evidence was presented by Team Green or Penske Racing to the contrary:

(a) At the time of the accident involving Car #34 and Car #91;

(b) At the time Race Control called the yellow caution period by radio;

(d) At the time the yellow dashboard light system was activated;

(e) At the last scoring time line before the yellow caution period commenced; and

(f) At the time the yellow dashboard light radio on Car #3 received the yellow light signal.

The telemetry data on Car #3, when synchronized with the Race videos and IRL timing and scoring data,[2] showed that the dashboard yellow light radio on Car #3 received the yellow light signal when Car #3 was in front of Car #26. The IRL obtained this telemetry data directly from Penske Racing, and it also matched up with the other telemetry data downloaded directly by the IRL from Car #3 following the Race. The analysis was performed by Jeff Horton ("Horton"), the IRL Director of Engineering, a highly experienced electronics engineer. Car #26 did not have data acquisition software installed on the Car to record the receipt of the yellow caution radio signal.

The videos of the Race can be interpreted as showing the track yellow lights coming on when Car #26 was outside Car #3 on the third turn. At that moment, Car #26 appears ahead of Car #3 by approximately four to six feet based on an imaginary start/finish line[3] across the race track in turn three, but at that same moment Car #3 would be ahead of Car #26 by approximately ten to twelve feet based on the distance of the Cars to the actual start/finish line.[4] The videos of the Race also show the display of the red flag with the yellow cross in the entrance to the pits when Car #3 was well ahead of Car #26.

[1] The Race Control procedure for the Race followed standard Race Control procedure. Brian Barnhart was on the directors radio channel communicating to the IRL Officials, and Mel Harder was on the Race Control channel communicating to the teams, spotters, pace car, starters and pit tech officials. Harder sits to Barnhart's immediate right, with one hand on the on-board dash light activation toggle switch, and the other hand on the switch activating his Race Control radio. Barnhart alerts Harder by contact with his right hand to Harder's shoulder, and Harder immediately activates both switches and repeats Barnhart's decision on the Race Control radio.

[2] The exact same Race videos and IRL timing and scoring data were used by Team Green in making its claims as to the placement of the Cars in relation to the track yellow lights.

[3] Technically, this imaginary line would be perpendicular to the tangent of the curve.

[4] The distance to the start/finish line is a geometric calculation based on the videos and other information provided by Team Green at the hearing.

ANALYSIS:

1. Appealability of Decision by IRL Officials

The IRL Officials must use their judgment in calling a yellow caution period throughout each Race. During the 2002 Indianapolis 500, the IRL Officials called five yellow caution periods. In officiating a race, the IRL Officials must use their judgment to determine the position of each Car relative to the position of each other Car at the commencement of each yellow caution period. The IRL Officials do not have the benefit of instant replay, telemetry data or any other device to make their judgment. Rather, when they call a yellow caution period on Race Control radio, they immediately determine the placement of all of the Cars from visual observation and from observation of television monitors in Race Control.

That is precisely why the Rule Book states that the decision whether a Car was improperly passed during a yellow caution period may not be protested or appealed. This is a determination Barnhart must make at the commencement of every yellow caution period during every race for every Car on the race track, whether the caution period commences on the first lap, the last lap, or any lap in between. Team Green's effort to second guess this decision is inconsistent with the purpose of this Rule.[1]

In addition to the foregoing specific Rule, the Rule Book also states the general rule that all decisions of the IRL Officials involving judgment are not protestable or appealable. That provision is equally applicable. The IRL Officials must use their judgment in determining the order of the Cars upon the commencement of yellow caution periods throughout each race.

Team Green's position is that the IRL Officials' determination as to the placement and order of the Cars upon the commencement of any yellow caution period during a race is protestable and appealable. Team Green's interpretation of the Rules is not logical and demonstrates the wisdom of this Rule. Team Green's claim that this decision by the IRL Officials is appealable presents the proverbial "catch-22" for Team Green. While it is not logical to claim that the IRL Officials' determination as to the order of the Cars on the commencement of a yellow caution period on lap #30 is appealable, there is also no logical basis for distinguishing the same determination upon the commencement of a yellow caution period on lap #30 and on lap #199, just because the Race happens to end during a yellow caution period on the latter but not the former.

Team Green's claim that there is objective evidence that the judgment of the IRL Officials was in error, based on evidence not available to the IRL Officials at the time they made the call, is tantamount to asserting a right to "instant replay" when the Rule Book does not provide for instant replay. Unlike the National Football League, the IRL Rule Book does not allow for instant replay challenges. At the time the IRL Officials had to make the call, they had to exercise their judgment. No amount of after-the-fact research into technical data changes the nature of the original decision.

For the reasons set forth in this Decision, I have determined that the placement of Cars at the commencement of a yellow caution period is a judgment decision which is not subject to Protest or Appeal. However, the Indianapolis 500 mile race is the biggest single day sporting event in the world. It was my judgment to hear the Appeal filed by Team Green before making a ruling on whether the IRL Officials' decision was subject to Protest or Appeal. My decision to listen to all of the arguments made by Team Green and Penske Racing before making any ru

Wednesday, July 3, 2002

Ladies IMS Triblend Silver Shimmer Tee.

Share:

Related Stories

Indianapolis 500 Talkback	Post Comment