XRCP GR 1.7 [withdrawn] Organizers may refuse entry 16-010

RCS/RCP # 16-010
Article – GR 1.7 Organizer may refuse entry
Summary – Organizers may refuse entry
Proponent – Marc Johnson
Date Posted – 04Jun15
Change Date – 2016
Status –  Open for comments. Recommended by CDC, Not recommended by PDC – Withdrawn 07Oct15

Current Wording – Organizers of recognized events may limit entries, refuse an entry, cancel, combine or divide a class, alter the proposed time schedule or substitute officials if necessary.

Suggested Wording – Organizers of recognized events may limit entries, refuse an entry, cancel, combine or divide a class, alter the proposed time schedule or substitute officials if necessary, with acknowledgment by the competition official(s).

Reason for change -The officials hired by the Organizer would offer guidance through experience and recommend on such situations without prejudice.

9 Response(s)

  1. daves says :

    June 24, 2015

    Organizer may always ask for advice from officials on any matter affecting the event but this additional wording is not necessary to make that happen nor should it be required. Put this in the Organizer’s Handbook not in the rules.

  2. Linda Yutzy says :

    June 29, 2015

    I do not agree with this addition to the rule. It should remain at the discretion of the Organizer, without requiring additional discussion or approval. The Organizer can utilize the experience of their hired officials, but should not be required to ask permission to make decisions.

  3. daves says :

    July 23, 2015

    Aside from being an insult to organizers, this additional language is very vague. Just exactly what does “acknowledgement” entail? Does it mean informing the officials that you (the organizer) are denying entry to someone? That’s none of anybody’s business, including the officials. Does it mean asking permission to do so? I really doubt that but I’m not sure. These things should be left to the organizer’s discretion as Linda Yutzy has said.

  4. Jeff Morse says :

    July 28, 2015

    I am unaware of a compelling reason for a change or of instances where the existing rule has been insufficient for this rule as it relates to Pleasure Driving.

  5. Jeff Morse says :

    July 29, 2015

    The Pleasure Driving Committee does NOT recommend this change. – Jeff Morse, Chairman

  6. lbh20@aol.com says :

    August 5, 2015

    I agree with this rule change proposal. It holds organizers accountable and ensures that ADS members are given equal opportunities to compete in ADS sanctioned events.

  7. Zantke says :

    August 6, 2015

    I strongly disagree with the rule change proposal and go along with Dave’s, Linda’s and Jeff’s comments. It is the organizer who puts on an event, it must remain his choice alone which entree to accept and which to refuse for whatever reason. It’s his party, and his choice on how in his sole judgement he feels he can create the best event. It’s up to him to consult his officials or whomever else he wants to, but his event is not a public utility where anybody could claim a right for admission.

  8. MichaelRidge says :

    August 6, 2015

    I’d oppose this change just because of the vague term ‘acknowledgment’ of competition officials.

  9. cleverlyr says :

    August 28, 2015

    If two people have such a deep seated disagreement that one does not wish to accept the entry of the other at an ADS event, I do not think that ADS officials should be acting at United Nations Peace Keepers. It is a personal dispute. If the ADS officials choose to overrule the organizer, is the a risk that, as a matter of principal, the organizer might cancel the event, affecting 50 or 60 other entrants? It would be an unfortunate situation, but an organizer must have the final say, especially if the event is on their property.

Leave a Reply