Sport's issue is perception the rules change constantly

Controversy in NASCAR's Sprint Cup Series? Are you kidding me?

Controversy sells, and that's usually a good thing. But confusion doesn't, and when it reigns that's another sordid story altogether.

The two were intertwined at the conclusion of this past Sunday's Amp Energy 500 at Talladega Superspeedway, when Regan Smith beat Tony Stewart to the finish line but was not awarded the victory because it was ruled he had crossed the yellow "out-of-bounds" line at the bottom of the track to improve his position (watch video).

There is no question Smith was guilty of this. While he feinted briefly to the outside on his final run at Stewart and the race victory, he clearly had no strong conviction of trying to pass anywhere but on the inside -- yet to pass Stewart on the inside of that part of the track at Talladega, a more experienced driver would have known it only could be accomplished by flirting dangerously with dipping below the yellow line.

Smith thought he was allowed to go below the yellow on the final lap. He said it was his understanding that on the last lap, with the checkered flag in sight, "anything goes." He argued that his only other option would have been to wreck Stewart, and perhaps himself, while going for the lead.

Muddy waters

Other drivers said afterward they had the same understanding that "anything goes" on the last lap. But Jim Hunter, NASCAR's vice president of corporate communications, insisted in a post-race statement that the rule had been clearly spelled out for all the competitors at the pre-race drivers' meeting.

"You cannot improve your position anytime you go below the yellow line. At the drivers' meeting, we clearly state that you cannot improve your position by going below the yellow line," Hunter said.

As for Smith's contention that Stewart forced him below the line, Hunter was unsympathetic as well. And for all those fans out there who could not understand why Smith wouldn't at the very worst be credited with second, Hunter explained why Smith eventually was scored with an 18th-place finish instead.

"We do not feel he was forced below the yellow line. In our judgment, he improved his position and the penalty for that is a pass-through, so he was moved back to the tail end of the longest line [of the cars on the lead lap] or the 18th position," Hunter said.

"Anytime you get into a situation like this, there are going to be two different opinions. We respect Regan's view, but we made the call, we think it's the right call and the finish is final. NASCAR has to maintain some kind of control -- and that's the reason we say you cannot advance your position by going below the yellow line. If he had not improved his position, he probably would have been awarded second place."

All of which sounds perfectly logical, even if the part where he said "NASCAR has to maintain some kind of control" drew more than a chuckle or two. The bottom line in this part of the argument is that Smith had plenty of room to attempt passing Stewart on the high side and chose not to do so, thus opening up this squirmy can of worms.

But there is more to the story, which breeds the unwanted confusion.

The precedent

In February of 2007, after a Truck Series race in Daytona, another prominent NASCAR spokesman, Ramsey Poston, went on a Sirius radio show and was asked by hosts Marty Snider and David Poole about a three-wide finish in which Johnny Benson went below the yellow line and passed Travis Kvapil for second in the event won by Jack Sprague (watch video). Poston's response appears to be, at least in large part, what fueled the belief of some drivers that "anything goes" on the final lap of events sponsored by NASCAR.

NASCAR says ...

Mike Helton, president of NASCAR, released a statement clarifying the rules regarding Talladega's controversial finish.

• NASCAR's official statement
• NASCAR's blog on the race
• Stewart given the win at 'Dega
• DEI wins despite losing race
• Video: Smith not happy
• Video: Stewart says right call

"When the drivers can see the checkered flag, you can get all you can get," Poston told Snider and Poole that day.

Poston is managing director of corporate communications for NASCAR. To their credit, he and Hunter frequently make themselves available to answer questions about controversial calls NASCAR may make.

But in the case of a controversial race victory being decided and explained to the public, therein probably lies the first problem. The first guy NASCAR needs to have making on-the-record statements about the rules when controversy arises is Robin Pemberton, vice president of competition. This would be no different than in the National Football League, when a pool reporter at each game is permitted to submit post-game questions to the lead official for clarification of rulings on controversial plays.

For if what Poston said in February 2007 was true then, why didn't it apply to the Sprint Cup race in Talladega on Sunday? If it wasn't true in February 2007, why was Benson's pass allowed to stand?

And if the rule had changed somewhere in between, how about letting everyone else in the home office know so the word could be spread before it gets to the ridiculous point Sunday where Hunter gave an explanation that appeared to conflict sharply with the one offered previously by Poston, leaving many fans bewildered and in an uproar?

What if ... ?

One off-the-record explanation making the rounds was that NASCAR officials informally had given drivers indication that "they can go below the yellow line on the last lap along the straightaway -- if they can see the checkers waving in the flagstand." This is a more convoluted and confusing version of the rule first espoused by Poston -- the implication being that Benson must have seen the checkers and therefore was legal to go below the yellow line for his pass at Daytona, while Smith made his move too early and therefore was illegal at Talladega.

But why would the yellow line be out of bounds for the first 186 laps of a Talladega race -- or anywhere else -- and not on the last lap? Why would officials plant this kind of "gray area" interpretation into drivers' heads and permit it to fester? And if they did, who can say with certainty exactly when any driver sees the checkered flag? He knows he's on the last lap and when he comes out of the final turn, to be sure, but this is the kind of murky and ambiguous rules interpretation that labels NASCAR as a joke in the eyes of many mainstream sports fans.

There are plenty of hard-core NASCAR fans who are expressing outrage and wondering what would have happened if it had been Stewart or Dale Earnhardt Jr. pulling off the same last-lap move on Regan Smith.

First off, it's doubtful a more experienced driver such as Stewart or Earnhardt would attempt to pass where they knew they might get themselves in serious trouble. They would have gone high, or at least forced the lead car to move higher up the track to block before diving low.

But if it had gone down in similar but reverse manner (meaning the bigger name going below the yellow line to pass the little-known rookie), you'd like to believe NASCAR would have done the right thing and called it the same way.

The only reason intelligent minds wonder about that is because NASCAR too often seems to encounter difficulty in understanding the difference between promoting controversy versus confusion, and which is good for the sport.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer