Bucky Badger
Go Kyle Go
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to get rid of the inversion at the winston, to prevent sandbagging, sorta like #48 did this time?
yeah. but Jimmy admitted to laying back, if this keeps up there will be a race for last place :lol:Originally posted by ward22@May 19 2003, 08:58 PM
It really doesn't matter to me, but I personally think there is no problem with it...Jimmie Johnson and Tony Stewart had the 2 best cars probably and Jimmie was just about to be bound to get up there.
yeah. but Jimmy admitted to laying back, if this keeps up there will be a race for last place :lol: [/b][/quote]Originally posted by Bucky Badger+May 19 2003, 11:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bucky Badger @ May 19 2003, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ward22@May 19 2003, 08:58 PM
It really doesn't matter to me, but I personally think there is no problem with it...Jimmie Johnson and Tony Stewart had the 2 best cars probably and Jimmie was just about to be bound to get up there.
I have to agree that the coverage was not good. They focused on the transfer position early, but when it mattered they just played follow the leader. They also did not have any idea of which lap was actually the last lap. After the Rudd pass of Rusty, it took almost 10 minutes to tell us who finished where.Originally posted by boogityboogityboogity@May 20 2003, 05:54 AM
Once a year i enough!, the tv coverage was vpoor there were to many adverts and they kept on missing restarts!. It was a shame that waltrip lost a few places in the last couple of laps![]()
![]()
You ever watch a slow tractor race? Them ole two-banger John Deer can go sloooooooooooooow. But the race is plum silly inverting the field. Why penalize the fast cars? [/b][/quote]Originally posted by EJL+May 19 2003, 10:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (EJL @ May 19 2003, 10:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Bucky Badger@May 19 2003, 11:02 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--ward22@May 19 2003, 08:58 PM
It really doesn't matter to me, but I personally think there is no problem with it...Jimmie Johnson and Tony Stewart had the 2 best cars probably and Jimmie was just about to be bound to get up there.
yeah. but Jimmy admitted to laying back, if this keeps up there will be a race for last place :lol:
Jimmy admitted laying back and the same scenario has been going on for years. Nearly every driver has done it at one time or another but does that make it right?Originally posted by Bucky Badger@May 20 2003, 02:02 AM
[QUOTE yeah. but Jimmy admitted to laying back, if this keeps up there will be a race for last place ]QUOTE
Now thats the greatest idea I have ever heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Originally posted by rpmallen@May 24 2003, 09:44 AM
They need to come up with a better vote. You always know people are going to vote to invert as many cars as possible, so what's the fun in that.
Here's my new vote:
a). Invert the field
. Have the drivers trade cars with another driver
c). Drivers in the top 5 race blindfolded
d). All drivers start backwards.
e). Enough racing, let's have a burnout competition!
hehe.
yeah. but Jimmy admitted to laying back, if this keeps up there will be a race for last place :lol: [/b][/quote]Originally posted by Bucky Badger+May 20 2003, 02:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bucky Badger @ May 20 2003, 02:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ward22@May 19 2003, 08:58 PM
It really doesn't matter to me, but I personally think there is no problem with it...Jimmie Johnson and Tony Stewart had the 2 best cars probably and Jimmie was just about to be bound to get up there.