- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 9,515
- Location
- Norah Head
Zarco catches rossi then goes for the inside pass so rossi takes a shortcut ....... pathetic move from a guy who has to pull such moves to compete.
Last edited:
Round 3: Red Bull Grand Prix of The Americas 2017
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
What on earth are you going on about?
Rossi was allowed to keep the position over Zarco because it was specifically ruled he had been forced off the track, but was not allowed to keep the time he had gained on MM, who was ahead and uninvolved in the attempted pass. In recent similar instances they have ruled similarly, at Laguna Seca 2013 ruling that both riders left the track, and at Assen 2015 that MM had forced Rossi off the track, but with much more than a reasonable implication that the riders concerned were allowed to keep the position maintained because of extenuating circumstances, not because they had left and re-entered the track in the same position.
I think RD are in something of a quandary because they have been inconsistent myself, but that actually is only a "reasonable inference" on my part.
Last edited:
I thought the ruling was correct at Assen 2015, MM wasn't going to make that corner, but in both instances Rossi anticpated contact and used it to gain a large advantage. Credit to him for being canny I guess, but this second one was at best quite marginal even imo, and I am happy to bow to your always well informed opinion.
Complaining about Zarco was absolutely rank hypocrisy from the perpetrator of the Jerez 2005 last corner pass and the man who said "that's racing" after Laguna Seca 2008.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,467
- Location
- Dont Know
Assen was different as Rossi hadn't made a riding error and was on the ideal line.
In this case Rossi made the error going into turn 1 too hot. As a consequence, not only was he then caught by Zarco he was also losing ground to Marquez. It's a double wammy once Zarco gets alongside. Rossi made a mistake, Rossi lost time, then lost track position, then got track position and more ground than he lost back by taking a short cut. Pretty good result considering he was the one who made the initial mistake setting the whole sequence in motion. I have no doubt if Zarco didn't get fairing to fairing Rossi would have taken him out.
Anyway as usual they have set a precedent if I were in any of the other teams I would have this on record ready to wipp out when required.
Exactly my view of Assen, and I was going for MM to win because it would have helped Jorge's points situation.
I have only watched a partial replay of the recent race, it being on at 4 am as you would know, and a replay of the actual incident and did not see the lead up to the incident.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 1,793
- Location
- A caravan on an island
Is the tech 3 bike 200mm longer than the factory one? I'm struggling to see how Zarco is level when his rear wheel is clearly behind.
IMO it was an optimistic lunge for a gap that wasn't there. Fair play to Zarco for trying it, Rossi's evasive action was dealt with rightly. He shouldn't have dissed Zarco in the interview, sometimes he can be a pr disaster.
The old man does lead the championship though.
There was no penalty per se. RD calculated the time gained by Rossi and added it to his race time.
Zarco trailed Rossi at every point on that turn albeit by a small margin. At worst it was a very minor racing incident that in no way merited a position penalty. Zarco wasn't culpable but given the aggression of his move he cannot claim to be a victim either.
Which technically is a penalty else, Rossi's completed race time would have stood
Meaningless penalty, but still a penalty
I am of the side that says Rossi did over-exaggerate the results of the impact and to me had he not seemingly pinned the throttle (remembering his line became straighter) when he rejoined the track and realised his gain (do not forget his sideways glance) then there would have been no penalty.
Personally, pure racing incident but one as much of his own making due to the bad t1 as it was of Zarco's seeing a gap and going for it (much like Rossi did last year on JL when JL whinged in a subsequent presser after he had to pick up the bike and run wide)
That said, I am interested in the penalty as for mine whilst it is a good call in terms of the .3 due to the time gained on Marquez there was no talk of the time gained on Zarco, such I suspect that RD decided the time Zarco lost to Rossi was his penalty (if that makes sense).
However, we also go back to p4's comment about the number of times Rossi has left the track and emerged with a greater advantage (this is not just Rossi but will use this example) as if we are now seeing a new penalty then excellent but the test is what happens in future with other occurences throughout the season
You quoted my post not the other way round.
To recap - my posts said that allowing Rossi to retain his position despite cutting the track was justified under the rules - the application of which had also allowed Marquez to retain his position at Silverstone last year (where he would have otherwise had to drop two places).
This was in reply to someone else's post arguing that it gave an unfair positional advantage to Rossi - my point in turn was being forced out or nearly forced out wasn't anywhere near as unfair as permitting Marquez's entired unforced error - where he went in too hot into a corner.. and then just kept going. RD cannot penalize the former while permitted the latter (and I don't recall quite as much debate over the legality of that one).
So.. that's what on earth I was going on about it.
Last edited:
The precedent has now been set as RD admitted that the contact exonerated Rossi of any deliberate gain (whilst I am sure he did not need to go that wide, I accept RD's call) but the test will come with others forced offline and/or others who force riders offline as does this decision encourage players to 'pull a soccer' and exaggerate the outcome?
Of course of even bigger interest will be the RD reaction if/when contact forces a rider from the race as to whether they add time or flag a rider?
As I said, whether RD is ruling consistently is entirely another question for which I for one have a ready answer, but the way they have ruled on this attempted overtaking manoeuvre and the other 2 recent instances I mentioned clearly indicates that they consider leaving the track to hold position per se in this situation not to be legitimate, which is the rule as I understand it also.
I don't recall the MM incident very well but I don't think it involved an overtaking move by him or anyone else, and if it was other than in the last lap with him having a sufficient margin over following riders and also did not allow him to overtake riders ahead of him then yes to be consistent they should have given him a time penalty as they did Rossi this time.
I agree with Gaz that the precedent set by this may prove difficult for RD, as has been the case with past precedents set with Rossi, as in future as Gaz says in a situation in future where going off track may be advantageous it would seem on the basis of this incident all a rider has to do is ensure minor contact before making such an exciursion.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,467
- Location
- Dont Know
Would you still say that if Rossi were to have won the race by 0.29 seconds from Marquez? It would have gone to appeal.
So why do anything at all? No harm no foul. Either penalise Rossi or let it go. The actual penalty is strange. Where did they get 0.3sec? Was that the gap to Marquez prior to the incident? Was it determined scientifically? What's the explanation from RD.
I can tell you straight away. Simply watching it live it didn't look right. My first reaction was .... Rossi's off, then wtf he's right behind Marquez? Obviously RD saw it the same and thought ok if we let this go it sets a precident. Not only to MotoGP, also and maybe more importantly to moto3 and moto2 where it's not uncommon to go through corners 2 abreast. The precident would now be cut the corner every time someone dares to 'race' you. A definite problem for RD, they decided they had to do something to penalise Rossi. The obvious, lose the position gained via shortcuting the corner. Can you determine anyway Rossi would have come out in front of Zarco if he'd have conceded the corner, or ride around the outside? No way.
Put it this way, what did Zarco do wrong? Nothing, Rossi made one, then a second riding error. Wide in corner 1, then cutting a entire section. Zarco was alongside enough to prevent Rossi getting the track he wanted. I don't care if it's 20cm or 2mm, he established track position, he had physical presence to block Rossi taking the line, he didn't run wide or wobble or look out of control at all. He deserved the reward of the move.
Actually I didn't think this was much more than a typical racing incident. My first reaction was let it go. Then I saw Rossi making threats to go to the safety commission. What ....... summon Capirossi? Don't race Rossi rule? Now I say .... that have balls RD and give the appropriate penalty, one position penalty.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,467
- Location
- Dont Know
Is the tech 3 bike 200mm longer than the factory one? I'm struggling to see how Zarco is level when his rear wheel is clearly behind.
IMO it was an optimistic lunge for a gap that wasn't there. Fair play to Zarco for trying it, Rossi's evasive action was dealt with rightly. He shouldn't have dissed Zarco in the interview, sometimes he can be a pr disaster.
The old man does lead the championship though.
Yes and I'm sure both Marquez and Vinalez are curled up in the foetal position at the prospect of Rossi leading the championship. Let's just see if he can hold it, down the stretch, under pressure, with no lack of sleep meltdowns. Fair play to him if he does, it will be a 10th well earned.
Disagree, I believe its a perfectly legitimate move by Marquez allowed by the rules.
https://vimeo.com/214642060
Functionally the rule is similar to the inclusion of runoff areas that allow riders to return to the race instead of punishing them for their mistake like gravel traps would. Whether one favours it or not the same rules to everyone, so its a level playing field. Which makes it fair.
Very true that the rule is functionally fair, however the test of any rule is the interpretation and imposition of a penalty, thus I am sure near everyone now waits with bated breath to see what happens next.
If RD continue on this crack down and are consistent in their determination of the true time to impose as well as going fully public with their reasons (ie. become transparent) then we will have little to complain about if things remain consistent.
Call me a cynic (and I am sure you will not be the only one), but for some reason I am starting to get shadows of 2015 all over again.
Now as for riders leaving the confines of the track - agreed as for me something needs to be done that is a punishment/deterrent as otherwise we will start to see riders taking a .3 hit as the end gain is greater (tactically)
Yes I would. It would have gone to appeal and gone against him.
RD merely removed the extra time gained by him calculated using the telemetry from the bike. No harm, no foul so he's not been punished.
And they've imposed the time adjustment to discourage any deliberate dives of this nature by removing the incentive.
Its not a perfect system and there exists the potential to exploit it to break contact with a rider but functionally speaking it'll do, simply because there aren't a large number of such zones across the rounds.
Nothing in terms of the rules. In terms of his racecraft, he made a mistake by being unnecessarily aggressive and crowding another rider in an area where the latter could justifiably veer wide on grounds of safety and break away.
More important question is what did he lose? Barely anything. Rossi was stripped of whatever edge he gained leaving his distance to Zarco essential unchanged.
We've all seen far worse outcomes from far smaller mistakes. Riders who wipe out a fellow riders unintentionally aren't penalized despite the fact that the consequences may cost the other a championship. The luck factor has always been a part of racing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 9,515
- Location
- Norah Head
Thats how its done correctly .... not that disgusting crap cheating we got from rossi .......
Opinion.
Of course we shall never know how it would have gone as it did not happen but personally I suspect that it would have ended in the CAS and been subject to a large online petition.
This is something I struggle with as certainly telemetry may show a .3 advantage on the lap so they say +.3 to your time (have not looked at sectors but was it 0.3 faster than MM in the sector or the lap?)
I have no issue with the penalty but want to see how they came up with the 0.3 (ie. see the data used) as for mine there are so many variables, although in the end I suspect it to be .... easy and as said, quite admire the ingenuity of the penalty (is a fair call)
.3 will not remove incentive but consistent application will, thus why they need to loudly state how and where the .3 was determined.
Again, further applications of the penalty are a bigger deterrent and personally I hope we do see them so that we can get a better understanding of each case but also to remove perceptions (real or imagined) of bias.
He did nothing wrong, he saw a gap, went for it but the gap closed ......... .... happens and really he should be applauded for the move in many ways but instead seems to be a bit on the receiving end ......... I just hope it does not deter him from future such endeavours
He seemed to lose a bit of time to VR when you watch the video which was more because VR shortcut, but at the same time he would have slowed due to the collision anyway (being throttle hand and leading to change of direction).
And back to my point ......... consistency.
In years past we see this kind of incident (or worse) time and again and it goes unpunished at all so if we are now looking at a new system, I am all for it provided that everything is open, transparent and consistent. Consistency of course being the toughest test for any official.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 138
- Location
- London, United Kingdom
With that in mind (and I appreciate that they couldn't have matched his salary demands) do you think Lorenzo would have faired better at Tech 3 Yamaha rather than Ducati?
Similar threads
