Verdict & Appeal Log

On the approach to Turn 1, both Mark and Jayden successfully maintain racing room while contesting the corner side-by-side. Through Turn 1, Jayden progresses the move to the point where the pass is approximately 90% complete and establishes his car ahead while occupying the middle portion of the circuit on the approach to Turn 2. The Appeal Stewards carefully reviewed the positioning of both vehicles at the point of contact and determined that Jayden did leave Mark the required racing room for Turn 2. The available space was marginal, however it remained sufficient under the regulations. Rule 3.3.3a requires racing room to be provided where overlap exists during a corner, while Rule 3.3.6 defines racing room as leaving at least one car's width between a vehicle and the edge of the track. RMPT_iRacing_League_Rulebook (2) As Jayden had left the necessary space, the Stewards do not find that Mark was forced beyond the limits of the circuit or placed in a position where contact was unavoidable. Review of Mark's steering inputs shows that, approaching Turn 2, he attempts to move further to the right in order to open the corner and improve his entry. In doing so, Mark attempts to claim additional track position beyond the space already available to him and makes contact with the left-rear of Jayden's car. Rule 3.3.1 places responsibility on the car behind to ensure that a pass or continued battle is conducted safely. The Stewards also considered Rule 3.1.2, which requires drivers to make reasonable efforts to avoid avoidable contact. RMPT_iRacing_League_Rulebook (2) RMPT_iRacing_League_Rulebook (2) The Appeal Stewards do not consider this to be an incident where Mark carries 100% responsibility. Jayden's positioning left only a marginal amount of racing room, and the cars remained in a closely contested sequence between Turn 1 and Turn 2. However, the required racing room was present. Mark's decision to move further right in an attempt to open the corner resulted in his front-right area contacting the rear-left of Jayden's vehicle. As such, the Stewards find Mark to be predominantly responsible for the incident.

Upon review of the available footage, the Appeal Stewards determined that during Turn 1 on Lap 1, Chris follows the normal racing line through Turn 1 and into Turn 2. Jesse approaches the sequence on a significantly tighter line and remains very close to the rear of Chris's vehicle while attempting to position himself for a potential move. As the corner develops, Chris returns towards the conventional racing line and the trajectories of the two vehicles converge. Rule 3.3.1 states that the car behind is responsible for completing a pass safely. As Jesse is the trailing vehicle and has elected to maintain the tighter line while in close proximity to Chris, he carries responsibility for ensuring that any attempted move can be completed safely. The Appeal Stewards also considered Rule 3.3.10, which states that no direction changes are permitted after braking begins, except when following the racing line. In this instance, the Stewards do not consider Chris's movement back towards the conventional line to constitute an unlawful defensive direction change. The available evidence indicates that this movement is consistent with following the natural racing line through the Turn 1–2 sequence. However, Rule 3.1.2 requires all drivers to make reasonable efforts to avoid avoidable contact, even where another driver may be at fault. While Chris was entitled to follow the normal racing line, the Appeal Stewards consider that both drivers contributed to the situation. Jesse maintained a tight attacking line in very close proximity to the rear of Chris, while Chris's return towards the normal racing line brought the two vehicles into the same area of track. The Stewards do not find sufficient evidence that either driver's actions were unreasonable enough to assign predominant responsibility for the resulting contact. Decision The Appeal Stewards find that: Chris followed the natural racing line through Turn 1 and towards Turn 2; Chris's movement back towards the racing line is permitted under Rule 3.3.10; Jesse elected to maintain a tighter line while extremely close to the rear of Chris; as the trailing driver, Jesse retained responsibility under Rule 3.3.1 to ensure any attempted move could be completed safely; both drivers could reasonably have taken additional action to reduce the likelihood of contact; and neither driver bears sufficient predominant responsibility to warrant a penalty.

Upon review of the available footage, the Appeal Stewards note that contact occurs from corner entry through to the mid-corner phase. At the point of contact, Matthew Berry's vehicle is oriented outward relative to the natural direction of the corner. While Matthew had successfully slowed the vehicle sufficiently to make the corner, his car continued to move laterally into Chris's established line. Under Rule 3.3.3a, where overlap exists during a corner, racing room must be provided. Rule 3.3.6 defines racing room as leaving at least one car's width between a vehicle and the edge of the track. The Appeal Stewards are satisfied that Chris provided Matthew with the required racing room and was entitled to maintain his established line through the corner. Chris did not force Matthew beyond track limits or remove the space required under Rule 3.3.6. The footage instead indicates that Matthew's vehicle drifted laterally into the line occupied by Chris during the entry-to-mid-corner phase. The orientation and movement of Matthew's vehicle at the point of contact support the finding that Matthew's movement was the primary cause of the collision. The Appeal Stewards also considered Rule 3.1.2, which requires drivers to make reasonable efforts to avoid avoidable contact. In this instance, the Stewards find that Chris had already provided the required racing room and that Matthew held the greater responsibility for preventing the contact. The Stewards acknowledge that netcode may have contributed to the contact appearing more severe than the physical overlap between the vehicles would otherwise suggest. However, regardless of any potential netcode amplification, the incident and contact still occurred as a result of the vehicles' respective trajectories. The possibility of netcode affecting the severity of the contact does not remove Matthew's responsibility for moving into Chris's occupied line.

RMPT Appeal Stewards – Official Verdict Original Verdict The Stewards determined that 'Mark moved slightly to the left into Matthew "Pepsi"', making contact with the right-rear section of Matthew's car. This contact caused Matthew to spin and resulted in a significant incident which, under normal damage conditions, may have resulted in a DNF. Appeal Review Following a review of the incident, the Appeal Stewards have determined that the original verdict is correct and will be upheld. The available footage shows Mark altering his line to the left and making contact with the **right-rear panel of Matthew's vehicle**. This contact directly causes Matthew to spin, resulting in a substantial loss of time and multiple track positions. The Appeal Stewards acknowledge the original verdict's reference to the incident potentially resulting in a DNF. However, whether the vehicle would have ultimately retired from the race—regardless of the lobby's damage settings—does **not influence the Appeal Stewards' decision**. The penalty is considered warranted based solely on the consequences that demonstrably occurred: **the spin, significant time loss, and loss of track positions**. ## Decision The Appeal Stewards find no sufficient grounds to overturn or reduce the original penalty.