Did NASCAR make the right call with Ambrose?

Ifelt bad for Marcos Ambrose on Sunday, I really did, but NASCAR made the right call on this one.

The rule is, under caution drivers must maintain a reasonable speed, not only did Ambrose not maintain a reasonable speed -- he stopped on the race track. Six cars were able to pass the No. 47 before he re-fired his engine and got going again.

I understand Ambrose was trying to save fuel, and the practice of shutting the engine off and coasting is done by every driver late in a road-course race, but that is no reason for Ambrose to get a free pass because he couldn't get his car re-fired.

I've seen some e-mails and comments comparing this to Greg Biffle's win at Kansas in 2007 but that is apples and oranges. When Biffle slowed and was passed by a few cars, it was the final lap, Biffle was the winner, and all that was left was the field had to "officially" complete the lap. With Ambrose, there was still racing to be done.

That being said, I'm not a fan of the word "reasonable." It leaves too much up to the discretion of NASCAR officials and allows unneeded controversy to sneak in. But, the fact is, Ambrose turned his car off between Turns 1 and 2, couldn't get it re-fired and came to a stop on the race track. No controversy involved in this one ? it's a tough lesson to learn for Ambrose, but the right call was made.

It would be really easy to dip into some of the muck I've already read about Sunday's finish at Infineon. Would NASCAR have made this call if Jeff Gordon or Jimmie Johnson or Junior were leading under caution and unable to re-fire their car?

Who knows? Who cares? You'll never get the answer you might be looking for and in the process, you'll lose sight of the bigger issue.

Marcos Ambrose had the dominant car and lost the lead under caution in the middle of the race track.

There's no disputing that under the rules, NASCAR made the proper call. But should the rule be changed? Should a driver that has so clearly dominated the field from the moment of unload on Friday be forced into a situation where they lose the lead under caution?

Should the leader ever lose the lead in the middle of the track under caution, under any circumstance?

Doesn't seem right.

NASCAR made a big deal earlier this year about giving us three chances at a green-white-checkered finish under the pretense of having races decided under racing conditions. If that logic holds true, then wouldn't it stand to figure that a race should not be decided under caution in this case?

I, for one, hope Ambrose has just as dominant a car at Watkins Glen and is able to close it out. If there is any justice, he will.