odbowles
Volaholic
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Messages
- 250
- Likes
- 5
The only thing I can think of is at the end of the race, Greg came up and gave me a couple of love taps to say 'good job, good race' and hopefully they find that that bent the tail of the car down a little bit," Edwards said after the race. "There are some braces bent under the decklid so hopefully that's what it is."
NASCAR also stated that with the COT, they are amping up the penalties that occur with the COT, intentional or not, and in this case they didn't do it.
Typical jealous of Jeff Gordon bashing.
.
Typical jealous of Jeff Gordon bashing. If you'll read the article, you'll see it's Jack Roush that's whining. The guy sounded like his season was over and the world was ending. Give me a break.
Yes,justified.A penalty for something unintentinal is not right.Roush's whining is justified? Every time a car is too low after post-race inspection a 25-point penalty is enforced. He knew that in advance, so do something to try to stop it. Every other time a COT penalty has occured, its 100 points and intentional or not, NASCAR said the penalties for COT infractions were going up. That wasn't the case here.
Yes,justified.A penalty for something unintentinal is not right.
The only thing that can be done is to have Nascar use common sense in dishing out penalties.When was there a 100 point penalty for an unintentional height infraction?
A penalty for something unintentional may not be right, but it's been commonplace for NASCAR.
According to NASCAR, 100-point penalties for height infractions were to issued as soon as the COT was introduced. They plainly stated that ALL penalties were going to be more severe with the COT. The tolerances were gone with the COT, and that wasn't the case here.