Dennis Noyes said that the difference may lie in the difference between the CEV and the CIV. CEV is very heavily policed, riders drilled at a very young age, whereas the CIV has a more relaxed attitude to this sort of thing. No need to guess which of the two is the more successful approach, of course.
Dennis Noyes said that the difference may lie in the difference between the CEV and the CIV. CEV is very heavily policed, riders drilled at a very young age, whereas the CIV has a more relaxed attitude to this sort of thing. No need to guess which of the two is the more successful approach, of course.
In all forms of motor sport as far as I am aware the person on the inside has the rights to the corner. Dani had the inside and at no stage was Sic in front of him.
The continued reference by people that Pedrosa was too hot and could not make the corner is BS in my view but I would be happy to change my view if someone can send me a link where I can look at Pedrosa's telemetry and see that he was in fact deeper and faster than he had been previously. Until then I call BS.
If Sic was not in front and was not on the inside and Pedrosa was not able to, maintain his line and was forced after contact to pick the bike up I can not for the life of me comprehend how any one could suggest that Sic did not cut him off. Pedrosa's only chance to make that corner would have been to run across the ripple strip on the inside of the apex. When at the limit it is impossible to tighten the line this much.
It is not Pedrosa's requirement when on the inside and closer to the apex then the rider on the outside to give himself a bail out strategy should another rider cut him off. It is absurd to suggest so. It was Pedrosa's corner and Sic had no right to aim at the apex nor be on the outside without allowing sufficient room.
Sic had more speed than Pedrosa at that stage of the race. He had closed him in quite easily. It shows a lack of respect, a lack of race craft and a lack of patience that he pushed a dangerous pass when there was absolutely no need for it. As a result of impatience and a lack of race craft we have a second title contender taken down through no fault of their own.
Penalty deserved and probably not strict enough.
By the way Darryl Beattie is a tosser.
In case you've forgotten what a re-overtake around the outside looks like, refer to 0:15
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO5z_aWdhEY[/media]
That's how it is done. Simoncelli's move was not well executed nor was it fair. It is difficult to even classify Simoncelli's move as motorcycle racing.
My take.
Poll 1.
Simoncelli's fault - he left Pedrosa no option, nor time for an option and cut across Pedrosa in a manner deserving of Penalty (which leads to poll 2)
Poll 2.
The penalty - I voted more information as I could not really find any one option that fit my initial thoughts.
I do think we have here a perfect and classic case of negligence/culpability on Simoncelli's behalf which I feel was caused by his sheer arrogance in terms of belief in his abilities and 'stuff the others' attitude.
But I am not sure of the penalty as a ride through does remove any ability for Simoncelli to protest/appeal the decision which should be a basic tenet of our and all sports - the right to appeal. A time penalty on the other hand could well have resulted in further issues were Simoncelli to be in a position and cause further carnage at a later stage (ie. take out another or even be close to a falling rider).
I can accept that the penalty given was in all likelihood the lesser of the evils but (oh ...., here goes) I do have a level of sympathy for Simoncelli in that he had no right of appeal and was likely (IMO) made an example of due to recent issues and Butler feeling sheepish.
Video: http://www.twowheelsblog.com/post/6362/video-why-marco-simoncelli-got-a-ride-through-penalty
Gaz
Poll 1.
Simoncelli's fault - he left Pedrosa no option, nor time for an option and cut across Pedrosa in a manner deserving of Penalty (which leads to poll 2)
Poll 2.
The penalty - I voted more information as I could not really find any one option that fit my initial thoughts.
I do think we have here a perfect and classic case of negligence/culpability on Simoncelli's behalf which I feel was caused by his sheer arrogance in terms of belief in his abilities and 'stuff the others' attitude.
But I am not sure of the penalty as a ride through does remove any ability for Simoncelli to protest/appeal the decision which should be a basic tenet of our and all sports - the right to appeal. A time penalty on the other hand could well have resulted in further issues were Simoncelli to be in a position and cause further carnage at a later stage (ie. take out another or even be close to a falling rider).
I can accept that the penalty given was in all likelihood the lesser of the evils but (oh ...., here goes) I do have a level of sympathy for Simoncelli in that he had no right of appeal and was likely (IMO) made an example of due to recent issues and Butler feeling sheepish.
Video: http://www.twowheelsblog.com/post/6362/video-why-marco-simoncelli-got-a-ride-through-penalty
Gaz
As you said in an earlier post and as I, with less knowledge to back me, said before I read that post what rule was employed? As far as I am aware you can impose a ride through penalty for illegal riding like jumping the start, passing under a yellow flag, or in wsbk at least cutting a chicane and you can black flag a rider for dangerous riding or because his bike is dangerous due to oil leaks or whatever, but this penalty seems unprecedented in modern premier class history. If any penalty was to be assessed perhaps a grid position penalty for the next race would have been better (again if there is a rule for such a thing), although this leaves the potential for deliberate dirty moves in the last race of a season or a season deciding race for those who think marco's move was dirty.
His actions were reckless and would not be considered fair racing by a reasonable person. These actions resulted in a rider falling, sustaining a injury requiring hospitalisation and being unable to finish the race. Pedrosa had no option to appeal against being taken out, injured and loosing a possible podium position and the points that go with it. Therefore in my view the perpetrator does not deserve the right either. It is not a court of law it is sport.
Penalties say "you can not behave like that" which is what I want as a fan. Why? Because we could no longer enjoy what Pedrosa was able to bring to the race. If Sic had of got past clean maybe Pedrosa could have fought back and we could have been treated to a great spectacle. Same as in Jerez if Rossi had of got past clean and they both stayed near the front we could have witnessed Stoners fight back through the riders in front and Rossi try to hang on as his tyres went off. Bone head moves that take riders out DO NOT make for good racing.
Joined Jul 2008
2K Posts | 14+
Tweed Valley Australia
Bump or not soon as Dani was in the corner Simoncelli was leaning on him. He had no room at all and his tyre was up against Simoncelli's front fairing area. There was no way Dani was going to make it, and most importantly he left Dani no option but crash, he could brake or back off or conced the corner, the option was never there.
Thank's for deflecting it away from being another Casey -v- Valentino thread
Mental, I do not disagree with your point, I actually totally agree with it, but.
Firstly, absolutely correct in that Dani himself has no right of appeal, nor no avenue with which he can be 'credited' points or receive any such recompense, but that aspect is totally separate (IMO) to the penalty for Simoncelli.
For mine, to penalise him mid-race as occurred removed the 'innocent until proven' that we, the public often discuss and given that I (like you I suspect) have often defended riders from accusations without proof, I think it unfair to suddenly change an opinion to guilty until proven innocent (ie. the old NSW speeding fine approach).
Yes, it is my opinion that Simoncelli is deserving of a penalty but to impose a penalty on a serious call of judgement (ie. opinion) wjilst not providing an avenue for an appeal is where I have an issue (as I do with jump start penalties caused by judges of fact). I would have preferred and would wholly support an investigation that sought input from all involved parties prior to judgement (and we had such a case over the weekend with Rdp and CS).
For me, no flag/drive-through should have been imposed during the race, but all results at the end of the race were to be deemed as 'provisional' pending a stewards inquiry. At this inquiry all evidence and statements from riders would have been taken following which due process would have resulted in a penalty that was to be imposed.
If that penalty was a time penalty, an exclusion or some other penalty then it could be imposed and the results finalised.
The simple fact is that whilst Dani has no right of appeal to his unfortunate result, no amount of action taken immediately against Simoncelli was going to change Dani's position - sadly.
Gaz
I understand your view but respectfully disagree with it. This is sport not life. I could start listing and probably go on for ever, incidents in life where innocent until proven guilty is just a fairy tail similar to the tooth fairy and santa claus. Just ask Sadam and the Iraqi's about their guilt on WMD's for example.
However, every other form of motorsport has drive through penalties and many of these are issued when no life is put at stake. As a fan I would prefer the result to be known when the checkered flag falls not a week later by reading it in the news. I think the only options should be doing nothing, drive through or black flag.
Where the problem exists and perhaps the reasoning behind your view is that due to the complete incompetence of race direction over many years there is no rules or precedents that can be used in this particular case. Further the widely held belief, which I to agree with is that race direction are as biased in their application or lack of application of the rules as Talpa is in his view of the world.
If you follow Aussie V8's you would know that there are a very strict set of rules that are equally strictly adhered to. A driver in V8's almost doesn't need to be told they must serve a penalty because they are very aware of the rules and know that under no circumstances are the rules going to be bent for anyone. If MotoGP moves in that direction the sport will be all the better for it. There will be no need for all the off track bitching and rider professionalism will be spread though out the field because those that show no professionalism will not get a ride. Perhaps a side effect will be more investment across the width of teams as sponsors will be happy to spend their money into a sport that is fair, equatable and well governed. At the moment it is akin to the wild west and only a couple of riders are allowed to have bullets in their guns.
Yup, we shall agree to disagree, but then I am an argumentative little fat so and so.
I actually think there should be other options, some perhaps more punitive that those you list and that is why I like in some instances (some are just to clear cut to argue) the ability to issue retrospective penalties, or penalties after a race has completed (ie. large fines, suspensions etc).
My view is more from having been at meetings and seen incidents happen (sometimes from distance, sometimes from a few feet) and then getting a first impression, a gut feel, and luckily for me sometimes the ability to ask the riders involved. To be fair, in most cases the initial impression is correct, but sometimes we miss things and I would hate to see a penalty imposed only to find out later that my impression was totally incorrect.
Yep, these guys have far more tools at their disposal than the average punter who may have to rely on noise, smell, eyes, and a quick review of marks before getting a chance to ask questions before coming to a conclusion. Additionally I have seen riders penalised for actions that simply did not occur or were vastly different in my view, just as I have seen riders absolved totally when my view was different to the finding (ie. how can an A grade rider miss a full course red flag for 2 consecutive laps when all others have entered the pits?).
No, I see your point that something immediate is needed but I also like conclusive outcomes based upon all available evidence. Maybe this is a situation whereby a rider is flagged to alert of an investigation or similar - a good separate discussion given my view.
I do follow the taxis and you are 100% correct (well, except one or two for whom they feel they can do no wrong), but even there I feel there is still some level of interpretation that sees driver A penalised but driver B absolved. Certainly they do issue more penalties (and safety cars) but my opinion on that is that it has a lot to do with, again the word rears its head - entertainment - and as such some decisions are based on ratings.
But I see your side totally and believe me when I say now that a penalty was warranted and FWIW were I making a decision it would have been harsher than was delivered (based on what I have seen).
Gaz
ImO - it was good hard racing.
Haven't seen enough photo evidence to speculate why Pedro stood the bike up, but I'll opine that (unless I see something to the contrary) he wouldn't have crashed if he'd held his line, which presupposes that he could do that and didn't need to go wider.
Should hard passing be penalized ??? - Or should it only be penalized if the "Passee" crashes ??? - my thoughts are NO & NO
This isn't the f...king Muppet's Show
It also begs the question of what is a hard pass - see Capirossi rams Harada back in 200X in the 250 cc final - that was brutal, but was it premeditated - and he rightly got a DSQ for it
As for VR being the major challenge to Stoner now - even with my heaviest yellow shades on - this one still has a way to go to even look like it's the case.
Even if Lollo's consistency has taken a dent and Yam can't give him more power - Dovi and Simo - (if he stays upright and out of trouble) are both faster than VR on the Ducati and that would put 3 Hondas at the front
What do i think of it: Not sure, more info required.
because i,m not sure of what happend. it looks like Sic was more responssible, but i dont know if Pedrosa was faultless.
The penalty: Marco's riding was too much, but the penalty was likely a result of Marco's reputation more than his action today.
because i,m not sure of what happend. it looks like Sic was more responssible, but i dont know if Pedrosa was faultless.
The penalty: Marco's riding was too much, but the penalty was likely a result of Marco's reputation more than his action today.
Its a good point mike. Maybe Marco assumed because it was dani that there wouldn't be a re-pass, especially at that part of the track. Its a shame because I like other here really thought this year could have been Dani's year. I wouldn't have like to be anywhere near Puig after that race
Joined Sep 2007
2K Posts | 60+
here
I did state that Pedrosa could not have known Simoncelli would be there, but perhaps not clearly enough.
Pedrosa was the guy in front with the inside line and should expect to be given the corner. I agree that, given the fact that Pedrosa could not maintain the tight line he had entered the corner on, he had no option but to stand it up or low side it into Simoncelli and guarantee to skittle them both. As I said, Pedrosa had not factored in the fact that Simoncelli would be there when he needed to open his line, nor should he have been expected to do so.
I appreciate that slow mo screen caps and split second live decisons do not correlate well. However, the space was there, which was Simoncellis point. I accede your point that Pedrosa did not expect to be forced into using that space and had not factored it in when chosing his entry speed. As already agreed, by the unwritten rules of the race track, he should not have had to. I amend my take of pure racing incident, to one where Simoncelli was in the wrong, especially due to the viewpoints of the riders who commented hving seen the incident. As I said, he should have been calmer and waited. Still not sure about the level of penalty though. Mind you, you can teach a fast rider not to crash and make stupid mistakes, but you can't teach a slow rider to be fast. Hopefully, like Stoner appears to have done from the punching incident, he will take something home from this.
I re-iterate my sorrow for Pedrosa's injury.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
The highlighted part is the most interesting part of your post, I dare say the thread. I suspect the only reason we are talking penalty is because one was issued, period. Otherwise, I suspect, as usual, anybody asking for a penalty would be relegated as being a “.....”, or not wanting close racing, or being told that this is not some kind of time trial sport, etc. I’m also wondering where is the usual preponderance of opinion that any incident on the track is merely a "racing incident"? Especially from journalists and ex-racers? I don’t see how this incident is any more special than many we have seen in the last few years with similar crash or (by mere lucky) some not ending in similar collision. We have been seeing this kind of racing for some time now, that is, as you describe it; "lack of respect, a lack of race craft and a lack of patience". If this is the litmus test for penalty, then we have several penalties to issue. Is there a rule that one cannot be issued retroactively?
It is quite useless to debate this particular incident in light that other incidents are more clear, yet deemed inconclusive and chalked up to just good old hard racing. So how we could get consensus on this one may be futile. To be sure, I have my opinion on the incident. But I think what has occurred in its wake, which I highlighted in your post, has been of infinite more interest to me, as it again highlights front and center the discrepancy and inequitable treatment of riders by the league, fans, and all interested parties.
Backing up a bit, your above take on the move by Simonchelli gave me pause to take several more looks at the incident, since you sound very adamant that Marco was at absolute fault, end of story, period. So with all do respect, I’m not so sure it all went down that clear cut for me. Like I said, it’s of very little value to me to debate the incident when other clearer incidents have been debated with no consensus, but I’ll just mention this little part. The telemetry, as you and Tom mention, is not the silver bullet for evidence that he went in too hot as the absolute cause for him to prematurely stand the bike up. Again, let me say this in other words, in telemetric terms, if you find that there is inconclusive evidence that he approached the corner within the average parameters of previous entries, this still does not factor in what would be overshadowed by human perception As much as we joke Dani is a robot, he’s not. The broader sequence of events that lead to this incident was a duel that started at the beginning of the straight where they swapped lead. This is the context of the incident! That is, going into that corner happened under momentous duress for both riders. Overtaking by setting up an outside-inside move is not uncommon; this is what Marco said he was trying to set up. Sure, it was poorly and desperately executed, however, nobody is saying Marco intended to take Pedro out, right? Which this seems to be another litmus test for penalty, that is, intent. It’s not enough to look at the telemetry and say, well, he came at an average approach, therefore, Dani is blameless. It is likely that Pedro came in ‘thinking’ he was too hot, which would be enough to spook himself. Lets for a moment imagine Simoncelli didn’t attempt the pass and Dani stood up his bike riding straight into the gravel. Would you be seeking to look at his telemetry? More than likely we all would be saying how Marco pressured Dani into a mistake and he folded. I’m sure you also saw that Dani’s rear tire come off the ground and the bike became slightly unsettled as he tips in, would this not be evidence that the rider may have ‘felt’ (within the context of the braking duel) that he ‘perceived’ his approach too hot? Again, Dani is human, and he was aware he was dueling with the labeled “dangerous & reckless” guy. The telemetry may help, assuming it was conclusive, but I bet it wasn’t.
So that’s a few things to honestly consider when taking a look at the incident itself; however, as I said, the incident itself is not what is most interesting to me but rather the decision to issue a penalty. You are of the opinion that a penalty was correct. You also describe the move as "lack of respect, a lack of race craft and a lack of patience". Let me ask you, during Butler’s tenure, was the Jerez 05, Laguna 08, Jerez 11 (or similarly, say Checa on Max N. in Wsbk) incidents any different? Does your litmus test for deeming a penalty appropriate require that the victim rider crash? How about crash and injured? How about no crash but the move described as you assign to Simoncelli’s. What makes his move so much more egregious? Marco’s history? Is that part of the equation?
I understand journalist and ex-racers are reluctant to call out the darling of the sport, so it’s of no surprise to me to see Simochelli being grilled (rightly so, for the record, I think the attempt was not called for, stupid and desperate) while similar desperate moves from a one Valentino Rossi, are glossed over. Valentino has twice spectacularly caused two other riders to be taking out, and once, by mere luck, disaster was avoided. Rossi was for the most part praised, much less a penalty even considered. Not only were his words self serving, as he said this is racing, but there was no shortage of ex-racers and journalist saying how fair the move was. I suppose Stoner needed to end up in the gravel and braking his shoulder for people to probably upgrade it to a mere “racing incident” much less penalty. Would you describe any of the three Rossi incidents I just listed above as: "lack of respect, a lack of race craft and a lack of patience"? Here is the issue I have, while you say a penalty should have been issued, then I would think that the powers that be should be similarly ‘adamant’ to call for a penalty on Rossi for the Jerez 2011 incident. I consider that move even worse, as Rossi didn’t have the inside line, but only by virtue of not braking with adequate traction (completely predictable considering the weather) did he end up in the inside plowing into Stoner (check Goatboy’s post, according to him, since Rossi had already crashed, somehow this is more innocent), Rossi’s torpedo is more egregious then Simoncelli, since at least Marco was in some kind of control going on the outside, thinking he had passed Dani, or forcing the rider to concede. I think Dani may have been spooked. Comparing it to Rossi’s aggressive moves, just about everybody chalked it up to a racing incident. Why? There was no way Rossi would make that apex considering the differential of speed into that corner, unlike Simochelli who was actually going the longer way around, on the outside, running the trajectory of Dani, had he kept his line. At least that’s what Simonchelli was attempting to do, thought it was an ..... move, but not any more egregious then Rossi’s.
If we are to call that Simocelli be penalized, which I’m not entirely opposed to, then I think we would need to penalize Rossi immediately. I’m not sure if you saw the prerace interviews, but Rossi was asked about the possibility of regulating overtaking. He laughed saracastically and said, this was hilarious to him, as that would not be something in keeping with the tradition of motorcycle racing. Perhaps he was thinking of Butler’s take that motorcycle racing is a “contact sport” (though nothing could be further from the truth, as contact in this short should never been intentional, say unlike American football. Maybe he just saw the helmets and figured it’s the same thing?) This was before the race, then when asked about Simoncelli’s move, suddenly contact is not longer acceptable? Again, self serving words to justify his Butler’s gift podium.
simoncelli should have been black flagged, as should rossi at jerez
if you're attempting stupid moves that are bringing other riders down then back to the naughty corner and have a think about your actions...end of story
if you're attempting stupid moves that are bringing other riders down then back to the naughty corner and have a think about your actions...end of story
if i'd be to decide:
Jerez 05 = bordeline case
Laguna 08 = penalty for sure
Jerez 11 = no penalty
Pedrosa/Simoncelli = penalty
My premise was based on valentino continuing to improve the ducati, which I think is likely, and the yamaha not improving much, which I also think is likely. Dovi won't beat stoner in a straight fight, whereas if valentino can improve the ducati even I would concede he possibly could. Simoncelli obviously has the advantage of being on the same bike as stoner, and could also possibly beat him in a straight fight in a single race , but not imo consistently, and is already well behind rossi let alone stoner, with a record of 5th, dnf, dnf and fifth; his last result could easily have been 2nd or less likely 1st, but could also quite easily have been another dnf.
Joined Sep 2006
3K Posts | 4+
Leading
