Championship & Penalty points system.

In MM's case he's faster and more skilled in racing. That's why a factory wants him over Smith. But they both have the same time at the big show.

baturro

3652231382558915

In MM's case he's faster and more skilled in racing. That's why a factory wants him over Smith. But they both have the same time at the big show.

Click to expand...

Irrespective of his greater skill, he also demonstrably presents a far greater hazard to other riders than Bradley; primarily and as a direct consequence of being so fast he rides dangerously close to the limit and has historically illustrated a cavalier attitude in his approach to his own safety and that of his fellow riders.

If rookies want to ride with the big boys they should also have to ride with the skill and class of the big boys.  If they can't, they aren't ready

Jumkie

3651731382544631

I love PS.


RSun makes good point. I thought of it when I suggested to reduce points, but as he says RD might be more reluctant to issue. But as Chops says, it would mean they might not issue for minor offense. I think this dilemma does highlight tbe difficulty. But as RSun mentioned regarding Rivas, RD is circumvented their own system. The thing is mist incidents are not so clear, like when Baustista torpedoed Lorenzo vs when Baustista torpedoed Rossi vs when Baustista 'almost' torpedoed Rossi. Are near misses also something RD should look at? I say yes if it can be counted as a ongoing dangerous habit. Which I think was the point the system attempts to address. Making things more difficult is that the popularity of a rider affects the sanction, lets not pretend it doesn't. Especially given, as I understand it, Dorna having a say in the decision.

Click to expand...

 


It's hard enough to determine responsibility for many of the different mishaps that occur in the course of a race, even with the use of high-def cameras. We've seen time and again that what appears true from one camera angle can appear quite the opposite from another. If we were to ask RD (who can barely do the job they're appointed to already) continually make objective determinations about what is a "miss" and what is merely close racing it would be a joke. They're already being criticized for lack of objectivity at every race. Such a ruling would serve one purpose only; to give everyone on PS more things to argue about. :doh:

One thing I would really think would make the difference would be that


the persons responsible for determining when an infraction of the rules


has been committed - and when a rider merits punishment - should consist


of a board of actual racers - rather than a bunch of pencil pushers.

.. 

Keshav

3652311382560793

One thing I would really think would make the difference would be that


the persons responsible for determining when an infraction of the rules


has been committed - and when a rider merits punishment - should consist


of a board of actual racers - rather than a bunch of pencil pushers.

Click to expand...

 


If we had a board of former racers handing out the penalties, I doubt Marquez or anyone else would have recieved anything this year.

Capirossi, Uncini... I'd be sceptical if ex-racers make for great race stewards. Some maybe, but you'd be likely to get people who are way to tied into the paddock to make sound judgements.

I think F1 does it now with at least one former driver advising at each event. But they tend to have opinions as crazy and varied as anyone else so I don't know if it really helps.

Keshav

3652311382560793

One thing I would really think would make the difference would be that


the persons responsible for determining when an infraction of the rules


has been committed - and when a rider merits punishment - should consist


of a board of actual racers - rather than a bunch of pencil pushers.

Click to expand...

 


IMO Kesh leaving it solely to racers will not work as there are to many egos, vested interest and way to much bias involved for any active rider to judge for or against the actions of another rider, thus why I suggested a single/solo ex-rider on a panel. Yes, absolutely that ex-rider may have the same bias or vested interest but by having two other lesser or non-aligned people (as a minimum) it will cancel out the bias and make a somewhat fairer process.


 


To me, leaving racers alone to judge racers is a bit like a murderer judging another murderer. They may well know what was done was wrong but rather than criticise they will award points for execution (pun intended) then go away and discuss who, ow, where and why they did the crime.


 


IMO, fixed and irrefutable penalties for clear cut offences (pit lane speed, blend line etc) where there is video proof all issues on race day by race direction, else a mixed panel of knowledgeable people (knowledgeable as in knowledge of the sport)


 


 
 

stiefel

3653411382609815

Capirossi, Uncini... I'd be sceptical if ex-racers make for great race stewards. Some maybe, but you'd be likely to get people who are way to tied into the paddock to make sound judgements.

Click to expand...

 



Yep, true but no way would I want Capirex judging (Pons maybe).


 


Form mine, stewards are not the critical point as they effectively deliver and decide the penalty (generally for severe offenses) but Stewards should play a definite role given their intimate knowledge of 'allowed penalties'

Obviously any penalties have to be fair, but they also have to have teeth. You can't have rules that say if you do x y or z you'll get punished, then when they do that nothing happens for ages. You need to either give more points, more readily, or cut down the amount of points it costs before you get a penalty as was said.


 


I like the idea of a points on your license until you've worked them off, but again, you can't be allowed too many 'mishaps' or 'bad moves' before anything happens. The punishment has to be swift, either at that race or the next one. So for example, disregard a yellow flag or cause a crash or whatever on either Friday or Saturday, grid penalty is effective on Sunday. Do something wrong Sunday, you're already aware you have a grid penalty next race.


 


If you makes rules you have to enforce them, if you don't then no one is going to take any notice. I was pleased to see the riders who didn't follow the rules on the pitstop last weekend were black flagged, consequences to your actions is the only way to make people take notice sometimes.

Lyria

3653691382617375

Obviously any penalties have to be fair, but they also have to have teeth. You can't have rules that say if you do x y or z you'll get punished, then when they do that nothing happens for ages. You need to either give more points, more readily, or cut down the amount of points it costs before you get a penalty as was said.


 


I like the idea of a points on your license until you've worked them off, but again, you can't be allowed too many 'mishaps' or 'bad moves' before anything happens. The punishment has to be swift, either at that race or the next one. So for example, disregard a yellow flag or cause a crash or whatever on either Friday or Saturday, grid penalty is effective on Sunday. Do something wrong Sunday, you're already aware you have a grid penalty next race.


 


If you makes rules you have to enforce them, if you don't then no one is going to take any notice. I was pleased to see the riders who didn't follow the rules on the pitstop last weekend were black flagged, consequences to your actions is the only way to make people take notice sometimes.

Click to expand...

I agree but i fear Dorna will view that as "spoiling the show" come quali next race. TV revenue and all that.

chopperman

3653721382618008

I agree but i fear Dorna will view that as "spoiling the show" come quali next race. TV revenue and all that.

Click to expand...

 


It works in other forms of motorsport, so I don't see why it wouldn't in motogp.

The real issue I see is not the penalty points system but in the rules. A complete set of rules outlining every possible transgression in black and white would be bigger than the freakin' bible and still impossible to correctly interpret/enforce IMHO - and yet judging every unique transgression on its own merits leaves us hanging our triple sow cow in mid air waiting for the judges to wave their magic wands… 4.5, 4.8, 4.8, and a 1.2 from the Russian judge...

Lyria

3653691382617375

Obviously any penalties have to be fair, but they also have to have teeth. You can't have rules that say if you do x y or z you'll get punished, then when they do that nothing happens for ages. You need to either give more points, more readily, or cut down the amount of points it costs before you get a penalty as was said.


 


I like the idea of a points on your license until you've worked them off, but again, you can't be allowed too many 'mishaps' or 'bad moves' before anything happens. The punishment has to be swift, either at that race or the next one. So for example, disregard a yellow flag or cause a crash or whatever on either Friday or Saturday, grid penalty is effective on Sunday. Do something wrong Sunday, you're already aware you have a grid penalty next race.


 


If you makes rules you have to enforce them, if you don't then no one is going to take any notice. I was pleased to see the riders who didn't follow the rules on the pitstop last weekend were black flagged, consequences to your actions is the only way to make people take notice sometimes.

Click to expand...

 


Good post, Lyria.

Good points here. My two cents: a mix of a panel of reviewers, that consists of different skill sets. FIM members, ex riders, etc + also a silent peer review system where current riders cast a vote. Everything us set on points 1 = slight infraction. 5 = major incident. Add all points from panel members and peers. As the points increase they automatically cost a predetermined penalty. I also like the idea of carry over points for the next season.

Including the opinions of current riders is probably a sensible idea. They are the ones who have to face up to the other riders on track and have the best idea of what is deemed acceptable. Although this year rider opinion seemed to be pretty split on most of the issues. It would set precedents though - ie. if I take issue with something expect that to be applied to me in the future.

Thats why it would be a silent vote. You could assume the bloke who got taken out would apply maximum points, but you'd never know for sure. And if you penalised a rider for certain actions expect the same if you performed same action.