Rain shortened races are a matter of course in oval racing - NASCAR, Indycar, even European oval series retreat to the garage when the wet stuff appears. In this position they share a dubious position in the sport with their cousin - the fuel mileage race - they seem to somehow de-value the win and often bring some criticism to whoever wins them.

'They didn't deserve to win'

'They got lucky'

Remember Danica's win in Montegi, OK there may have been a ugly dollop of sexism in there but it was all hidden under a layer of fuel mileage race criticism.

Now, leaving the fuel mileage race comparison alone. I have no problem with them, infact they are often the most interesting thing about the races that spawn. Let's concentrate on the rainy races.

NASCAR currently operates under a rule that once the race has run 50% of its intended distance, it counts as a full race. If the rain starts to fall and the track can't be dried, and the race completed, and the lucky guys get the win. Again, luck always has a place in sports, I'm sure that some people would like it to be eliminated from them, but Lady Luck is sort of hard to write rules against. (although the idea of NASCAR publishing a press release citing Lady Luck, Mother Nature or indeed God with 'Actions detrimental to Srock Car Racing' is priceless)

But luck plays a overly-massive part in rain race hence, like fuel mileage races their results often look like a typo. Kurt, Mikey, Yeley, Truex and Sadler as the top-5. No Honest, go check, see, it really happened.

But do these drivers deserve to be credited with the full number of points when they 'win' a rain shortened race.

I say no.

There may be an element of strategy invloved, or being the best at spotting the green blob on the radar but mostly it's all dumb luck. 9/10 times the drivers that get the good results are the ones that gamble. I like gambling, well at least by sportsmen, well done them for gambling and it paying off. But they didn't really 'win' if the race had reached its actual conclusion they probably wouldn't have won.

So I propose that shortened race winners are given shortened points, depending on how long the race is. Let the winner keep the Chase bonus points and the top-5 and 10's for the stats columns. Obviously to work out the percentage of the race completed to work out the percentage of points given is over complicated so the number of points awarded would be based on the rough number of laps completed - rounded to the nearest 'big' milestone - 50%, 75% or the full 100%.  

The same percentage of points all the way down the chart, keeping it fair, but stopping dumb luck from influencing important point standings too much. Imagine of the Richmond pre-chase race is rain shortened and what the normal roulette could cause.