Rossi Hate.

p4p1 said:

What was worse, Marquez PI 2013 or Rossi Sepang 2015?

I can actually see the Marquez/Honda argument of technically they hadn't started the lap on the old bike due to where their pits were located

Click to expand...

I don’t know how dangerous the decision to stay out an extra lap was, but I would venture to suggest it created orders of magnitude less danger than the decision made in regard to the pit exit/re-entry point.

I was strongly supporting Jorge for that title, but it would have been grossly unfair for MM to lose the title for flouting a rule almost literally made up 5 minutes before the race should he have had say a mechanical DNF at Valencia.

Gaz said:

Ask, and ye shall receive - https://www.google.com.au/imgres?im...M7WAhUIqJQKHVBRBcoQMwhXKCYwJg&iact=mrc&uact=8

Click to expand...

Yeah banned for life and Marqy's dad allowed to punch rossi out.

I know someone bought up Marquez imitating some of Rossi's past moves, ie Jerez and Laguna but I think that Laguna when Marquez was much different and showed that Rossi was never fun and games with Marquez.

In 2008 Rossi had left the track to maintain position in desperation because he knew once Stoner was in front for a few turns he was gone. In 2013 Marquez had ridden around Rossi going into the corkscrew and Rossi ran him so wide and off track that he himself ended up outside the track. Rossi had left Marquez nowhere to go which could've ended in both of them sliding down the track on there arses. This is why I believe the two are very different situations.

michaelm said:

I don’t know how dangerous the decision to stay out an extra lap was, but I would venture to suggest it created orders of magnitude less danger than the decision made in regard to the pit exit/re-entry point.

I was strongly supporting Jorge for that title, but it would have been grossly unfair for MM to lose the title for flouting a rule almost literally made up 5 minutes before the race should he have had say a mechanical DNF at Valencia.

Click to expand...

But unlike Sepang 2015 RD didn't wait until after the race to hear the reasoning behind Marquez going in a lap late but instead issued an irreversible penalty that could've resulted in Marquez losing the championship. The rationale RD gave for not black flagging Rossi during the race was that they wanted to hear both sides of the story and a quick black flag could've effected the championship.

p4p1 said:

But unlike Sepang 2015 RD didn't wait until after the race to hear the reasoning behind Marquez going in a lap late but instead issued an irreversible penalty that could've resulted in Marquez losing the championship. The rationale RD gave for not black flagging Rossi during the race was that they wanted to hear both sides of the story and a quick black flag could've effected the championship.

Click to expand...

Two totally different scenarios.

One is a factual decision based upon the change to the rule that required to not exceed 10 completed laps prior to changing of tyres. Marquez was on lap 11 when he entered the pits and thus had completed 10 laps.

The second is a subjective decision and as such, to make a call would have required full and total access to all telemetry, cameras of the broadcaster and DORNA together with the testimony of riders and officials involved. Now, whilst many called for an immediate black flag what if there was a technical reason that VR ran wide and he had been DQ'd, would that have been fair?

For RD to DQ a rider they need to be 100% convinced that they are correct and that a DQ'able offence has occurred (thus, for DQ's it is easiest where it is an offence against fact such as Marquez, or Biaggi ignoring black flags) else they open themselves up to some serious risks of fairness. Ask most officials (particularly FIM ranked officials) and they will tell you that during a race you err on the side of error by not making a decision but you access all data and determine the penalty quickly so as not to allow conjecture to drag on.

As an example, a few years prior to Sepang 2015 we saw Simoncelli get a ride through for an incident involving Pedrosa where many people feel that the only reason the ride through was given was because it was Pedrosa who fell as many feel that whilst a tough pass, that there were extenuating circumstances that should have seen a post race investigation.

Lets face it dorna sucks ..... as does rossi.

Gaz said:

Two totally different scenarios.

One is a factual decision based upon the change to the rule that required to not exceed 10 completed laps prior to changing of tyres. Marquez was on lap 11 when he entered the pits and thus had completed 10 laps.

The second is a subjective decision and as such, to make a call would have required full and total access to all telemetry, cameras of the broadcaster and DORNA together with the testimony of riders and officials involved. Now, whilst many called for an immediate black flag what if there was a technical reason that VR ran wide and he had been DQ'd, would that have been fair?

For RD to DQ a rider they need to be 100% convinced that they are correct and that a DQ'able offence has occurred (thus, for DQ's it is easiest where it is an offence against fact such as Marquez, or Biaggi ignoring black flags) else they open themselves up to some serious risks of fairness. Ask most officials (particularly FIM ranked officials) and they will tell you that during a race you err on the side of error by not making a decision but you access all data and determine the penalty quickly so as not to allow conjecture to drag on.

As an example, a few years prior to Sepang 2015 we saw Simoncelli get a ride through for an incident involving Pedrosa where many people feel that the only reason the ride through was given was because it was Pedrosa who fell as many feel that whilst a tough pass, that there were extenuating circumstances that should have seen a post race investigation.

Click to expand...

Which is fine but from memory DORNA/RD had never said the penalty was going to be a black flag and again going from memory and this could've been thanks to English being their second language but given how the new rule was worded they could've argued that they never completed the lap before the bike swap therefor a DQ was unfair. Remember DORNA also changed the wording around when it happened again for Argentina. All I'm saying is that Marquez was not given the same benefit of doubt as Rossi was and the difference here is that it was a 5th hour rule DORNA had devised that Honda tried to play technicalities with the wording of the new rule and lost.

Marquez was not a danger to anyone while he was out there racing fairly and a decision could've been made after the race as it was for Rossi. The reason why I would say Rossi had to be black flagged after that incident was that at that point he had became enraged and unpredictable and was a danger to himself and others on the track as punting Marquez off the track proved. For all we and RD knew at the time Rossi could've slowed and waited for the other cheater Lorenzo. Far fetched yes but it would've been before the race if you hadve predicted correctly what would happen.

p4p1 said:

Which is fine but from memory DORNA/RD had never said the penalty was going to be a black flag and again going from memory and this could've been thanks to English being their second language but given how the new rule was worded they could've argued that they never completed the lap before the bike swap therefor a DQ was unfair. Remember DORNA also changed the wording around when it happened again for Argentina. All I'm saying is that Marquez was not given the same benefit of doubt as Rossi was and the difference here is that it was a 5th hour rule DORNA had devised that Honda tried to play technicalities with the wording of the new rule and lost.

Marquez was not a danger to anyone while he was out there racing fairly and a decision could've been made after the race as it was for Rossi. The reason why I would say Rossi had to be black flagged after that incident was that at that point he had became enraged and unpredictable and was a danger to himself and others on the track as punting Marquez off the track proved. For all we and RD knew at the time Rossi could've slowed and waited for the other cheater Lorenzo. Far fetched yes but it would've been before the race if you hadve predicted correctly what would happen.

Click to expand...

From MotoGP website - New challenge as mandatory bike swaps added to Australian GP

Nope, no mention of a DQ but a very clear cut message that they MUST change bikes. He and his team failed to do as per the rule that was imposed and, like the vast majority of situations where a rule of fact is ignored, he got a DQ .......... just as Biaggi and others before him for failing to follow the process. It should also be remembered that all but two of the teams understood the intent of the rule and the ramifications which would seem to indicate that it was well understood by all others.

It does not have to be written when it is a rule of fact as it is called.

What you are failing to understand (recognise) is that the situations are entirely different and as such, they and the outcomes should be looked at in isolation and separate.

One was a fact ............ if you do not do this than you have breached a rule.

The second is a case of 'holy ...., did we just see that, man we need to look into that'.

As for Marquez and PI, well yes, he MAY have been able to continue but he and his team ignored a direction of race control ....... it is that simple and they have admitted it since - they ...... up.

With regards to DQ'ing VR immediately, once again your comment that he was enraged is based on what occurred after the event and what he stated after the event --- which RD did not have access to until after the race had been completed, thus they did not and could not KNOW (as opposed to assume) his state of mind.

One must remember that Marquez himself was only relegated to the back of a grid for what is one of the most heinous acts on a motorcycle racing circuit in the last 15 or so years, he was not dq'ed from the event just as more recent examples have been handled with kid gloves

Gaz said:

From MotoGP website - New challenge as mandatory bike swaps added to Australian GP

Nope, no mention of a DQ but a very clear cut message that they MUST change bikes. He and his team failed to do as per the rule that was imposed and, like the vast majority of situations where a rule of fact is ignored, he got a DQ .......... just as Biaggi and others before him for failing to follow the process. It should also be remembered that all but two of the teams understood the intent of the rule and the ramifications which would seem to indicate that it was well understood by all others.

It does not have to be written when it is a rule of fact as it is called.

What you are failing to understand (recognise) is that the situations are entirely different and as such, they and the outcomes should be looked at in isolation and separate.

One was a fact ............ if you do not do this than you have breached a rule.

The second is a case of 'holy ...., did we just see that, man we need to look into that'.

As for Marquez and PI, well yes, he MAY have been able to continue but he and his team ignored a direction of race control ....... it is that simple and they have admitted it since - they ...... up.

With regards to DQ'ing VR immediately, once again your comment that he was enraged is based on what occurred after the event and what he stated after the event --- which RD did not have access to until after the race had been completed, thus they did not and could not KNOW (as opposed to assume) his state of mind.

One must remember that Marquez himself was only relegated to the back of a grid for what is one of the most heinous acts on a motorcycle racing circuit in the last 15 or so years, he was not dq'ed from the event just as more recent examples have been handled with kid gloves

Click to expand...

We knew he was enraged before his comments given his actions on track. The signalling at Marquez and then the incident.

Gaz said:

From MotoGP website - New challenge as mandatory bike swaps added to Australian GP

Nope, no mention of a DQ but a very clear cut message that they MUST change bikes. He and his team failed to do as per the rule that was imposed and, like the vast majority of situations where a rule of fact is ignored, he got a DQ .......... just as Biaggi and others before him for failing to follow the process. It should also be remembered that all but two of the teams understood the intent of the rule and the ramifications which would seem to indicate that it was well understood by all others.

It does not have to be written when it is a rule of fact as it is called.

What you are failing to understand (recognise) is that the situations are entirely different and as such, they and the outcomes should be looked at in isolation and separate.

One was a fact ............ if you do not do this than you have breached a rule.

The second is a case of 'holy ...., did we just see that, man we need to look into that'.

As for Marquez and PI, well yes, he MAY have been able to continue but he and his team ignored a direction of race control ....... it is that simple and they have admitted it since - they ...... up.

With regards to DQ'ing VR immediately, once again your comment that he was enraged is based on what occurred after the event and what he stated after the event --- which RD did not have access to until after the race had been completed, thus they did not and could not KNOW (as opposed to assume) his state of mind.

One must remember that Marquez himself was only relegated to the back of a grid for what is one of the most heinous acts on a motorcycle racing circuit in the last 15 or so years, he was not dq'ed from the event just as more recent examples have been handled with kid gloves

Click to expand...

Sure. At the very least a multi-race suspension was appropriate for the Willairot thing.

Being decidedly cynical about Dorna, I do wonder about the influence of the championship still being at least theoretically alive for Valencia in 2013 and 2015.

I do think pretty well anyone would get a 10 second penalty in F1 for a move similar to Rossi’s at Sepang 2015, but mostly fortunately for us MotoGP is not F1.

p4p1 said:

We knew he was enraged before his comments given his actions on track. The signalling at Marquez and then the incident.

Click to expand...

So does that mean that all riders who speak up at a press conference or gesticulate will be so enraged that they should not compete, or is it a momentary show of disdain/disgust?

Should Espargaro have been dq'd and banned for giving the finger last season?

What of Stoner and his punch of RdP?

michaelm said:

Sure. At the very least a multi-race suspension was appropriate for the Willairot thing.

Being decidedly cynical about Dorna, I do wonder about the influence of the championship still being at least theoretically alive for Valencia in 2013 and 2015.

Click to expand...

Forget being Cynical ........... I have absolutely no doubt that the championship and the two riders involved played a very large and serious part in the manner in which the issue was handled as for me they thought of $$$$$ should the golden goose get the title, no more and no less.

As said by Stoner, if other riders were involved the outcome would have been different.

michaelm said:

I do think pretty well anyone would get a 10 second penalty in F1 for a move similar to Rossi’s at Sepang 2015, but mostly fortunately for us MotoGP is not F1.

Click to expand...

I am not an F1 watcher but do watch some other motorsports (and will be busy next Sunday with the taxi race) but remain relatively convinced that in V8's, the worst would have been a post race penalty or a redress, although as we know cars would have continued but totally agree, the fact that MGp is not F1 is what makes it great .......

Gaz. Please offer me your opinion based on your experience. I would genuinely like to hear your process for deciding the penalty for Rossi based on what we know occured. If after the race all the data and telemetry concluded that Rossi deliberately rode into another competitor, causing him to fall, why wasn't he excluded from the results. Why would he be allowed keep 3rd place? If that incident isn't worthy of disqualification, what would a rider have to do to be DQ'd.

33 Coupe said:

Gaz. Please offer me your opinion based on your experience. I would genuinely like to hear your process for deciding the penalty for Rossi based on what we know occured. If after the race all the data and telemetry concluded that Rossi deliberately rode into another competitor, causing him to fall, why wasn't he excluded from the results. Why would he be allowed keep 3rd place? If that incident isn't worthy of disqualification, what would a rider have to do to be DQ'd.

Click to expand...

33, I said at the time that he should have been allowed to finish and then all bike data downloaded, together with a review of lap and sector times, mixed with DORNA camera. circuit camera and broadcast cameras as well as the riders involved and/or surrounding.

As for why he was not excluded, well I return to my comments of golden goose.

My opinion of course is tainted as I am no fan of Rossi but, and I emphasise but, if the comments he reportedly made after the event were correct (ie. that he slowed down with the intent to stop MM and ask WTF - my paraphrase) then .... exclusion and go with suspension - under no circumstances should a rider stop on a live race track when that rider has full control of their motorcycle.

And that is irrespective of whether I feel that a penalty for the collision is warranted as for mine, there are separate breaches that occurred and whilst everyone seems focused on the impact/collision, I am more concerned that an experienced rider felt it acceptable to stop on a live track - inexcusable (IMO)

Thanks Gaz. I totally agree. Maybe we need to kick the can to get you on the GP RD panel.

33 Coupe said:

Thanks Gaz. I totally agree. Maybe we need to kick the can to get you on the GP RD panel.

Click to expand...

Man, that is a very political environment and something that I would personally not wish on my worst enemy (based on experience told to me by some who have been in the GP towers).

The real shame for me out of the whole .... fight is that lessons have not been learnt and, if anything, the power that was used has increased and the abuses continued.

The outcome is what we get when you do not have a truly independent tower involved.

That all said btw, I am a very hard ....... when it comes to penalties for indiscretions that occur at race meetings, be that on track or off as during the course of the meeting there are standards that are expected.

Gaz said:

So does that mean that all riders who speak up at a press conference or gesticulate will be so enraged that they should not compete, or is it a momentary show of disdain/disgust?

Should Espargaro have been dq'd and banned for giving the finger last season?

What of Stoner and his punch of RdP?

Click to expand...

Disdain/disgust, gesturing, an punching RdP on a stationary bike is not the same. After Rossi had run Marquez off causing him to crash he had become unpredictable and was a danger to anyone on the track at that time. Did you think Rossi wasn't at a level above what those guys were when he attempted to squeeze Marquez off the track all the time looking at him?

Take road rage for instance, it's fine to gesture and scream at someone but it crosses a line and makes you a danger on the road once you decided to run someone off the road because you're angry.

As you said before just above Rossi attempted to stop on a live track or push someone off the track to make a break(I think he used both as an excuse?), he was at that point unpredictable and dangerous. This is why he should've immediately been removed from the track before he had the chance to cause damage to others. I know he didn't and I know it was unlikely but was it anymore unlikely that he was going to do what he did? I remember thinking at the time it was the best battles I've ever seen on track between two guys, all the moves were hard but fair and it was genuinely exciting.

Of course having all the facts and stories before handing down an irreversible punishment is best but I don't think it's far fetched to say at that point and after Rossi was a danger and should've been removed regardless of how it effected the championship.

Edit to add: for the record I don't believe the Marquez/Honda plan was to put when he did in 2013 but he got caught up battling during an unfamiliar situation and didn't pit when he needed to. But the I do believe the unfamiliarity of the rules should've been taken into account when deciding his punishment. As you said it really was probably less dangerous than extending the speed limits going onto the track that could've caused both Marquez and Lorenzo to crash when they touched thanks to their speed differences.

p4p1 said:

Disdain/disgust, gesturing, an punching RdP on a stationary bike is not the same. After Rossi had run Marquez off causing him to crash he had become unpredictable and was a danger to anyone on the track at that time. Did you think Rossi wasn't at a level above what those guys were when he attempted to squeeze Marquez off the track all the time looking at him?

Click to expand...

RdP was not stationary ......... far from it.

The rest is based on the assumption of what has become known after the race and yet you want RD to act on information that came out after the race .........

p4p1 said:

Take road rage for instance, it's fine to gesture and scream at someone but it crosses a line and makes you a danger on the road once you decided to run someone off the road because you're angry.

Click to expand...

According to the law in NSW as example, all of what you listed is road rage.

p4p1 said:

As you said before just above Rossi attempted to stop on a live track or push someone off the track to make a break(I think he used both as an excuse?), he was at that point unpredictable and dangerous. This is why he should've immediately been removed from the track before he had the chance to cause damage to others. I know he didn't and I know it was unlikely but was it anymore unlikely that he was going to do what he did? I remember thinking at the time it was the best battles I've ever seen on track between two guys, all the moves were hard but fair and it was genuinely exciting.

Click to expand...

Once again however - he made the statement AFTER the race, thus how are RD to make a decision during the race based on comments made AFTER it.

p4p1 said:

Edit to add: for the record I don't believe the Marquez/Honda plan was to put when he did in 2013 but he got caught up battling during an unfamiliar situation and didn't pit when he needed to. But the I do believe the unfamiliarity of the rules should've been taken into account when deciding his punishment. As you said it really was probably less dangerous than extending the speed limits going onto the track that could've caused both Marquez and Lorenzo to crash when they touched thanks to their speed differences.

Click to expand...

Definitely the unfamiliarity played a part but so did arrogance of pushing to the limit of the rules - did you ever see Gabbarini as MM started lap 11?

He and others knew it was over and that they had ...... up .......... which means that team MM ignored the advice of HRC at the time ........ no excuses for misunderstanding aside from arrogance

Check the 2 minute mark




Edit to add:
BTW, if you go back to my comments at the time you will see that I have the same view today as I did then.

Essentially, RD got it right to not flag him but the rest I disagree with in terms of punishment and vehemently oppose any chat that was had with Marquez

Gaz said:

RdP was not stationary ......... far from it.

The rest is based on the assumption of what has become known after the race and yet you want RD to act on information that came out after the race .........





According to the law in NSW as example, all of what you listed is road rage.




Once again however - he made the statement AFTER the race, thus how are RD to make a decision during the race based on comments made AFTER it.




Definitely the unfamiliarity played a part but so did arrogance of pushing to the limit of the rules - did you ever see Suppo as MM started lap 11?

He and others knew it was over and that they had ...... up .......... which means that team MM ignored the advice of HRC at the time ........ no excuses for misunderstanding aside from arrogance

Click to expand...

Yes both are defined as road rage but only one can lead to you losing your license or ending up in prison as far as I'm aware. Only one of those actions make you a danger to others on the road. And it's not yelling and gesturing.

That he made comments after the race is totally irrelevant. Regardless of comments he made before, during or after he was at that point a danger to anyone on the track because of what he did. When someone is a danger in an environment, be it racing, football or society they are rightfully removed to ensure they don't harm anyone else.

When I was playing junior footy I got given a red card to remove me before I could hurt anyone else(a guy punched me, at the time I had been boxing for about 3 or 4 years so it was pretty one sided once I retaliated) I was rightfully removed because from that point given the state of anger I was in, I was an unpredictable danger to every other kid playing on the field. I know it's different sports but I believe the logic is exactly the same and it is applied to every aspect of society.

I'm also a string believer that you should get exactly what the person you've hit/endangered etc has Ie Rossi should've been given no points like Marquez finished with and then still had a penalty applied. I know it's a different sport but to make it clear what I mean, when that ....... Barry Hall punched Brent Staker, he was given 7 weeks and back playing before Staker was. IMO a fair punishment is him being out for as long as Staker was thanks to the injury Hall inflicted and then being subject to the further seven week suspension. The victim shouldn't end up worse off than the perpetrator and both time they were.

p4p1 said:

Yes both are defined as road rage but only one can lead to you losing your license or ending up in prison as far as I'm aware. Only one of those actions make you a danger to others on the road. And it's not yelling and gesturing.

Click to expand...

Both can if repeated.

p4p1 said:

That he made comments after the race is totally irrelevant. Regardless of comments he made before, during or after he was at that point a danger to anyone on the track because of what he did. When someone is a danger in an environment, be it racing, football or society they are rightfully removed to ensure they don't harm anyone else.

Click to expand...

Actually the comments he made after the race are the critical component to it all as it was during these comments that he made admissions (if comments are reported correctly).

But how do you know with surety that he did not have a technical issue?

You do not by watching the telecast.

You can assume, and likely rightly assume but you do not know with surety and it is this surety you require to be able to initiate actions of a disqualification or other as to punish and then identify a just cause id more unfair and irreversible than is to not punish immediately and adjudicate after.

p4p1 said:

When I was playing junior footy I got given a red card to remove me before I could hurt anyone else(a guy punched me, at the time I had been boxing for about 3 or 4 years so it was pretty one sided once I retaliated) I was rightfully removed because from that point given the state of anger I was in, I was an unpredictable danger to every other kid playing on the field. I know it's different sports but I believe the logic is exactly the same and it is applied to every aspect of society.

Click to expand...

Big difference.

You acted in front of an on field adjudicator who could physically see your condition and emotions. You were not wearing a helmet and the adjudicator was not sitting in a tower where they generally do not have the public broadcast but rather rely on radio reports from officials placed around the track.