The only discussion at Sepang was over whether Rossi should have been black-flagged or given a ride through. Personally, I think RD made the right call.
Thanx for the reply. I appreciate it.
Just for the sake of argument, please hear me out Kropo. Rossi ceased the act of racing, ceased the contest within accepted parameters (rules) looked over twice to gauge his target, and later confirmed what was obvious to the viewer (including those tasked to offer the play by play commentary) that his action to neutralize his rival 'outside the rules' was deliberate. If this wasn't black flag worthy, nothing should be logically. No matter how egregious, since the standard you're proposing, one that can (and did) alter the championship was crossed decidedly 'outside the regulations' where everything beyond that point is just a question of magnitude, this is irrational (with all due respect). Allow me to elaborate my rationale.
For the sake of hyperbole, I'm reminded of a quote by the first women Nobel Peace prize recipient, who quipped about mitigating war, "was like regulating the temperature when boiling someone in oil." Once you've allowed the line to be crossed, beyond it highlights the absurdity of arguing magnitude. Especially in the case where eliminating the obvious danger is appropriate for "safety". Shelving the notion of deterrence. Why black flag for example, a rider with dangling equipment that 'may or may not' dislodge? Granted, you disagree that Rossi posed no immediate danger, based on faith I imagine, which is reasonable, perhaps. However, in the context that nobody predicted VR's action to crash Marc nor what action he might have taken next in real time, was an act of faith.
The logic for no immediate action, if we test it based on its rationale of being 'a death penalty' (we're both fans of hyperbole) would allow any rider to do the same in any contest where the points gained would ..... a 3 point penalty tally, one that has no immediate effect on a clean license; and in Rossi’s case, no immediate effect given the new Rossi Rule specifically for him in 2016. You can argue that RD would step in on obvious usurping of the 'spirit' of the "rules" except I contend that's what effectively happened at Sepang 15, at very least unintended this was the actual outcome. The 3 points would have allowed Rossi the 16 points procured illegally (yes illegally, a point which should not be overlooked) then started where he qualified at Valencia had it not been for the 1 point he carried on his license. In a sport where contestants and teams are actively looking for loopholes in the rules (les we forget the last time we saw a black flag issued, or the short lived Factory 2 designation, etc.) it seems troubling that we might place trust in them self-policing the 'spirit of the rules'. It sounds you would be advocating for a system that gives the benefit of the doubt to a group of individuals decidedly looking for weaknesses in the system, in a question of safety no less. The flip side, as I said before, is the danger that RD could abuse that power to alter the championship. How many fans would have been in favor had RD black flagged or issued at least a ride through for Marquez at Sepang for 'unsafe' riding? I can hear the Rossi fans now (and frankly most of the experts) saying how they would have agreed with RD stepping in on a "dangerous" situation.
You're not alone in your stance that Rossi was undeserving of a black flag. However, with all due respect (.) I'm more aligned with Casey Stoner's opinion (while in the minority ) that in a 'normal world, Rossi would have been black flagged.'
Edit: Nobel; Bertha von Suttner. Sorry, history nerd.
