What I Learned From The NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Rule Book

dpkimmel2001

Team Owner
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
36,363
Points
1,033
Location
Western PA
From Jeff Gluck article located here.

Apr 5, 2012 - For the first time since I started covering NASCAR in 2004, I recently received a copy of the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series rule book. I've thumbed through friends' copies of the book before, but never had the chance to sit down and really examine one until now.
Since NASCAR doesn't make the rule books available to fans, I figured I'd go through the 172-page book and share some of the more interesting nuggets I found with you.
Here goes!

PAGE 1
Right off the bat, something interesting! The first two pages of the book list all the important people in NASCAR, and it's basically in order of their importance. Well, guess what? While the first two names are Bill France Sr. (founder) and Bill France (legacy chairman), the third name was a surprise to me: John Middlebrook.

Yep, that's right. Middlebrook, the National Stock Car Racing chief appellate officer who recently overturned Jimmie Johnson's penalty, is listed before the other four members of the France family – Brian, Jim, Betty Jane and Lesa Kennedy – as well as before Mike Helton.

Guess that goes to show you just how important Middlebrook's job is viewed by NASCAR.

PAGE 3
In a foreword written by Brian France, the NASCAR CEO says the rule book is used as a tool to help make stock car racing "highly competitive, affordable and entertaining for race fans and competitors." France urges readers to carefully study the book but also warns: "It may be necessary for NASCAR to make rule changes and/or modifications from time to time. Such changes are designed to enhance close competition."

PAGE 5
We haven't even gotten to the rules yet, but the "Preface" page reads: "The Rule Book may be amended from time to time." Clearly, officials like to leave themselves from flexibility.

Also, in big capital letters, NASCAR makes clear that just because one follows the rules does not guarantee a competitor's safety.

PAGE 8
Now we're into the rules section, which starts with kind of a "because we said so" element. In Section 1-4, the book says if there's any disagreement over the rules, "the interpretation and application by the NASCAR Officials at the Event shall prevail."

On the same page, the term "EIRI" is introduced. EIRI means "Except In Rare Instances" and serves as somewhat of an out in case officials need it. But here's something else: Section 1-6 says even if there's no EIRI clause specifically attached to a rule, officials can use EIRI anyway.

PAGE 15
Section 6-1 starts the "Safety" section, and it contains kind of an odd statement. There's a paragraph reminding participants that stock car racing is a dangerous activity that can cause death, but it also says, "Members are required to advise their spouses and next of kin, if any, of this fact." As if they didn't know?

On the same page, in Section 6-2-C, the rule says competitors are obligated to report any inadequate or unsafe condition in the track to both the track promoter and NASCAR officials.

PAGE 20
In the recent Nationwide Series race at Fontana, Kyle Busch was being interviewed by ESPN and was late for drivers' introductions. NASCAR then made him start at the back of the field. But the rule in Section 9-4-E says that decision was at NASCAR's discretion.

It states: "Any driver that is not present at the Pre-Race driver introductions may be penalized." The key word there is "may;" it doesn't say the driver "will" be penalized. So in that case, NASCAR chose to send Busch to the back of the field.

PAGE 23
Section 9-8 is a rule I didn't know. If a race ever takes the green flag but is red-flagged before the completion of the first lap (I guess if a downpour was to suddenly hit the track), all cars would return to their original starting positions when it resumed and there would be a double-file restart like the race had never started.

PAGE 24
When is a penalty not a penalty? When it's a pit road or procedural infraction. Those type of penalties are not appealable like inspection penalties are. Why? Because as Section 9-11 states, "A lap or time penalty is not a 'penalty' within the meaning of Section 12 (penalties that can be appealed)."

PAGE 25
I've heard some broadcasters say an official race means one lap past the halfway point, but that's not what Section 9-14-D says. The actual rule is a race must reach the halfway distance, and then it becomes an official race if it can't be completed.

PAGE 27
You know that blue flag with the diagonal yellow stripe – also known as the move-over flag – that's supposed to make lapped cars get out of the way? Well, while Section 10-3 says cars who see this flag "must prepare to yield" to the faster cars, there is no consequence or penalty listed for ignoring it.

PAGE 28
At Martinsville, there was talk that David Reutimann would have had three laps to answer a black flag from NASCAR before his laps stopped counting. But guess what? The rule on black flags, Section 10-6-A, says nothing about a certain number of laps to recognize the black flag.
All it says is the black flag "signals the driver must go to the pits immediately." The number of laps given to a driver to answer it is at the discretion of NASCAR officials.

PAGE 29
Section 11-2 says if a driver requests a re-check of the finishing order, it has to be done in writing within 20 minutes of the results being posted and must be accompanied by a $200 "non-refundable service fee" to NASCAR.

PAGE 30
Ever wondered what happens if a driver doesn't pay his fine? Section 12-3 says it could result in a suspension. Also, if NASCAR doesn't get its money "promptly," then NASCAR can subtract the fine from the purse money.

PAGE 33
Section 14 and 15 deal with the appeals process, but they contain slightly different language. For example: If a member of the appeals panel has a conflict of interest with the case, Section 14-4-D says the person "shall disqualify himself/herself from participating as an Appeals Panel Member."
But in Section 15, which deals with the Chief Appellate Officer (Middlebrook), there is no such language about a conflict of interest. I'm mentioning this because Middlebrook's friendship with Rick Hendrick was a hot topic during the recent No. 48 team appeal.

By the way, whoever is appealing the penalty has to write NASCAR a $500 check for each stage of the appeals process.

PAGE 36
This one was a jaw-dropper, because I've never heard this rule before and it affects who gets into the Chase. Section 17-3 lays out the criteria for qualifying for a Chase wild card berth and contains this significant language:
In the sole discretion of NASCAR, the win(s) were unencumbered by violation(s) of the rules or other action(s) detrimental to stock car auto racing or NASCAR.​
WHOA! If I read this correctly, it means a driver who wins a race but fails post-race inspection (like Carl Edwards in the 2008 Las Vegas race), may not have it counted toward a wild card berth. I've never heard that before, but I'd say that's a pretty important part of the wild card rule, right?

PAGE 49
Did you know? Section 20-1.3 says each car model used in NASCAR must be "American-made." I never knew that. The full rule says: "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series races are open to eligible 2012 models of American-made steel bodied passenger car production sedans."
You're probably asking yourself: What about Toyota? Well, the Camry is made in Kentucky, so maybe that's how it works. But Ford Fusions are made in Mexico and Dodge Chargers are made in Canada, so this is certainly a confusing rule.

PAGE 50
The C-post rule (Section 20-2.1-E) that got Chad Knaus in trouble is as follows: "Streamlining the contours of the car, beyond that approved by the Series Director, will not be permitted. ... If, in the judgment of NASCAR officials, any part or component of the car not previously approved by NASCAR that has been installed or modified to enhance aerodynamic performance will not be permitted."

Which makes you wonder: If Middlebrook considered the C-posts passed inspection last year, then did he view them as being "previously approved" and therefore found reason to overturn the penalty?

PAGE 68
We've seen lots of crazy paint schemes over the years, but Section 20-3.11-A lists a couple we'll never see. "Paint schemes using a mirrored or holographic appearance will not be permitted," it says.

PAGE 172
You'll notice it's a big jump from page 68 to page 172, but my eyes glazed over on the rest of the book because it's all technical guidelines and diagrams of what the various parts are supposed to look like.

Page 172, though, is blank. It says "NOTES." I figure this page is either reserved for rule changes or for crew chiefs to write down which gaps in the rules they plan to exploit.
 
Page 23, at Charlotte, they took the green and crashed in turn 1 due to a wet track. Back up cars were brought out. Not sure if it was thw Winston or 600

Years ago they was a TV show with cartoon dinosuars. My kids loved it. Like the Flintsones but set in modern times. Dad dinosaur worked for a large company, the "Because We Say So Corp". Na$car reminds me of that all the time. It's a rule unless it's not a rule,,,,
 
"Yep, that's right. Middlebrook, the National Stock Car Racing chief appellate officer who recently overturned Jimmie Johnson's penalty, is listed before the other four members of the France family – Brian, Jim, Betty Jane and Lesa Kennedy – as well as before Mike Helton.

Guess that goes to show you just how important Middlebrook's job is viewed by NASCAR."

More likely, it shows how much the France siblings argued over who goes next.
"This one was a jaw-dropper, because I've never heard this rule before and it affects who gets into the Chase. Section 17-3 lays out the criteria for qualifying for a Chase wild card berth and contains this significant language:
In the sole discretion of NASCAR, the win(s) were unencumbered by violation(s) of the rules or other action(s) detrimental to stock car auto racing or NASCAR."​
This is good to hear. I railed about this when the wildcard rule came out because of NASCAR's history of not overturning wins, even when cheating was discovered. The temptation to cheat your way into the chase could have been too much to resist. IF the win is in the books, not counting it would be a first. It's a bit different than not giving 3 bonus points, like they did to Carl after the levitating oil cooler cover.​
 
Interesting. Jeff said he had to come from the back, so I guess they didn't cut any slack to the wrecked cars.
 
What I found interesting about JJ's penalty is that after the 1st appeal to the Nascar board, they let 1 man , John Middlebrook overturn their rulling. Not that I find it suspicious that he was a former Exec. of GM and had been there for about 30 yrs. Don't guess they let a Ford Exec. decide Carl's fate did they?
 
What I found interesting about JJ's penalty is that after the 1st appeal to the Nascar board, they let 1 man , John Middlebrook overturn their rulling. Not that I find it suspicious that he was a former Exec. of GM and had been there for about 30 yrs. Don't guess they let a Ford Exec. decide Carl's fate did they?
And he is a PERSONAL friend of Rick
 
I think Gluck is an a hole for releasing this crap. The public has no knowledge of what it takes to run the France's business , nor do they need to have discussions on how it is run. I think that Gluck should be kept off Nascar property.Gluck seems to be an instigator.
 
I think Gluck is an a hole for releasing this crap. The public has no knowledge of what it takes to run the France's business , nor do they need to have discussions on how it is run. I think that Gluck should be kept off Nascar property.Gluck seems to be an instigator.

You owe me a keyboard. This one is dripping with sarcasm.
 
Mr Gluck may lose his credentials over this. Not sure what he was thinking writing this stupid article.
 
Mr Gluck may lose his credentials over this. Not sure what he was thinking writing this stupid article.

He obviously has never read any other series rulebooks. They're all opened to interpretation of the officials. There is nothing in there shocking. I chuckled reading that. Wow, he really stumbled on something. He's a mental midget.
 
He obviously has never read any other series rulebooks. They're all opened to interpretation of the officials. There is nothing in there shocking. I chuckled reading that. Wow, he really stumbled on something. He's a mental midget.

I used to like his writing but he's written 2 really dumb articles this week. Maybe he should cover Indy Car full time. And if NASCAR wanted their rule book public they would give away copies. I think Gluck is out of line with this crap.
 
I used to like his writing but he's written 2 really dumb articles this week.
I sure agree with you on that Danica twist earlier this week. That was pretty bad. I like most of what he does so I guess its OK I disagree with him time to time.
 
Heck, you can get older copies of it on EBay. I don't get why it's such a big deal.

It's just in bad taste. He picked out stuff that he thought would get him attention and tried to make NASCAR look bad on the process. I just think it's petty and childish.
 
I'll agree to disagree on that note. It's an off week. Drivers on vacation. Not much to write about. The David Reutimann story has ran its course. I guess he could write a Carl Edwards/Amanda Beard story. That's still a hot topic. Maybe another story on the Bristol reconfig and the taxpayer connection. Nope, that's kinda been done too. Oh well I guess the rule book story gives people on here something to complain about during an off week. So, it's not all bad.
 
......... Oh well I guess the rule book story gives people on here something to complain about during an off week. So, it's not all bad.


Disagree . He didn't write that for us to chat about . He held that up to the general public to ridicule us.
 
Whoever gave him the rule book should lose their track access. Gluck did what any reporter would do. If you give a reporter a piece of paper of any kind, it's going to be published. That's a fact. Gluck did his job.
 
Heck, you can get older copies of it on EBay. I don't get why it's such a big deal.

It's not a big deal. Everyone wants to crucify the media, again, for doing their jobs because a bunch of people with keyboards and internet access know more about how journalism works than people who have actually done the job for years.
 
Whoever gave him the rule book should lose their track access. Gluck did what any reporter would do. If you give a reporter a piece of paper of any kind, it's going to be published. That's a fact. Gluck did his job.

NASCAR hands out the rule books to the media at Daytona during Speedweeks each year. Lots of them have rule books. Gluck was three first one dumb enough to publish excerpts.
 
NASCAR hands out the rule books to the media at Daytona during Speedweeks each year. Lots of them have rule books. Gluck was three first one dumb enough to publish excerpts.

I've seen media members (Gluck included) say they've never been able to get the rule book.

Either way, good for Gluck. I would've done the same thing.
 
Why is it such an issue that the rule book was published? I don't get that at all. So many complain about the rules but complain that you'd get to see them.
 
Why is it such an issue that the rule book was published? I don't get that at all. So many complain about the rules but complain that you'd get to see them.

IMO Gluck just cherry picked a few things in an attempt to make NASCAR look bad. He failed to mention that the rules he was citing regarding judgment calls are common across all types of motorsports.
 
Why is it such an issue that the rule book was published? I don't get that at all. So many complain about the rules but complain that you'd get to see them.
Exactly.

I have to admit, I'm real surprised @ peoples opinions of his article about this. I though it was pretty cool that he gave us a glimpse between the covers of this much questioned book.

Like Matthew mentioned in an earlier post, many members of the media already have these books in hand. They do hand them out @ Media Day as he said. During Media Day activities I posted a picture of the three books, Cup, Nationwide, & the Camping World Truck Series that were on the table for the media to pick up as the filed by. Heck, If you'd like your very own 2012 NASCAR Rule Book, buy this one on EBay. If you'd like an older copy, as they are cheaper, buy one of these 38 copies that were on there this morning. Would NASCAR allow this to happen if they were concerned about the public seeing this book? No, they'd either prosecute every seller or make every purchase on EBay of these 'highly classified' materials. :rolleyes:

Well, we should find out soon enough how big of an issue this is with NASCAR, right? If it's such a big deal that this books contents be kept behind the closed doors of the garage then there will probably be some kind of sanctions levied against Gluck. Hard card pulled or something to that effect. Wait, that's right, then there will be those that say that we'll never know because NASCAR & Gluck will have to remain tight lipped about whatever the penalty is that's assessed. My guess is that they will ban him from the track this weekend as a penalty for releasing this 'very sensitive' material. o_O

Man, I can't wait until we get back to racing!
 
It's not about the material, I agree with every rule that he cited. And I agree that he has every right to publish it . And I don't think that it is diabolical. I just think that his only motivation was to ridicule . Just the same as a bully taking a kids poetry assignment and reading it out to the whole school in the lunch room. Why would anyone do that ? If not to ridicule ? Then what is the purpose? It's just nasty . Shove your diabolical.
 
It's not about the material, I agree with every rule that he cited. And I agree that he has every right to publish it . And I don't think that it is diabolical. I just think that his only motivation was to ridicule . Just the same as a bully taking a kids poetry assignment and reading it out to the whole school in the lunch room. Why would anyone do that ? If not to ridicule ? Then what is the purpose? It's just nasty . Shove your diabolical.

The "diabolical" was a joke because you said that the article was "to ridicule us." I thought you were making a joke about him ridiculing "us" on this forum. I was just trying to play along. :(
 
I see no reason why fans shouldn't have access the rules and those who don't want to read them don't have to.
 
Let's oversimplify the points that people have made here to bolster our own agendas! Sound good?
 
It's not about the material, I agree with every rule that he cited. And I agree that he has every right to publish it . And I don't think that it is diabolical. I just think that his only motivation was to ridicule . Just the same as a bully taking a kids poetry assignment and reading it out to the whole school in the lunch room. Why would anyone do that ? If not to ridicule ? Then what is the purpose? It's just nasty . Shove your diabolical.

I guess that wasn't sarcasm on my keyboard after all. :rolleyes:
 
I see no reason not to publish the rule book. I don't understand Gluck's problem with it. As many have already said, there's really nothing different about NASCAR's rules that local racers haven't raced under for years.
 
Back
Top Bottom