Rules changes in wake of 2015 discussion

You need both Cool, thus to me why the third representative will be critical

You need to know the meaning of the written rule, the intent of the written rule, when to apply it and how to apply it.

The word as you say is responsibly but even that word will, within the legal system have been tested many times and thus there will be a form of 'legal definition', thus the legal eagle needs to know the rule, why it was written and it's intent so that it can then be applied against the prior occurrences.

The person or people with knowledge of the sport need to be able to identify the different between the on track situation, explain them and review them against the wording of the rule and how the word responsible (when we use that word) fits.

The issue with the current system is that it is gray and open for interpretation and/or challenge should a rider decide to challenge the 'responsibly' component (VR challenged the punishment, not the finding which is an aspect we seem to have missed - he accepted that aspect from what I recall)

Either way, removing rider punishment from the promoter is a better thing that from my mind

With Ippolito he is trying to express something that has not yet been determined and I do not believe that english is his first or well used language so I am happy to let it slide. The issue seemed to be that he was cornered and asked about a yet to be established body

Gaz said:

You need both Cool, thus to me why the third representative will be critical

You need to know the meaning of the written rule, the intent of the written rule, when to apply it and how to apply it.

The word as you say is responsibly but even that word will, within the legal system have been tested many times and thus there will be a form of 'legal definition', thus the legal eagle needs to know the rule, why it was written and it's intent so that it can then be applied against the prior occurrences.

The person or people with knowledge of the sport need to be able to identify the different between the on track situation, explain them and review them against the wording of the rule and how the word responsible (when we use that word) fits.

The issue with the current system is that it is gray and open for interpretation and/or challenge should a rider decide to challenge the 'responsibly' component (VR challenged the punishment, not the finding which is an aspect we seem to have missed - he accepted that aspect from what I recall)

Either way, removing rider punishment from the promoter is a better thing that from my mind

With Ippolito he is trying to express something that has not yet been determined and I do not believe that english is his first or well used language so I am happy to let it slide. The issue seemed to be that he was cornered and asked about a yet to be established body

Click to expand...

Hmm, I think we are in violent agreement here, just arranging the same thinking with different semantics. My point is that you need deep knowledge and experience in the sport in order to be able to administer the very subjective rule about riding responsibly and not causing danger to others. And that the rule only works if you have this.

Have you read the rules? It's all there in the link I posted. All of the rules except that one are very straight forward to administer, it's only that one that requires subjective judgement, which requires knowledge and experience. I think you might be surprised at how little is codified in the rules... There is nothing for a legal mind to work with.

Regarding the CAS appeal, that was naive is all I can say, maybe I posted at the time, maybe not, but my thinking was that it would be along the lines of...

Ok, thanks for convening this hearing, now, what's the dispute please?

Um, I don't a like a the decision to move a me to the back a of a the grid. I a want to have it deferred ah until next a season please.

Ok, where is the provision in your regulations for deferring penalty?

Scusi?

(Repeats the question)

Oh, um, well... We don't a have him.

Oh. Oh, I see hmmm, well ok. Um, appeal denied.
Next!

We likely do agree but the reason I suggest that a legal mind be involved is to ensure due process is adhered to and that the meaning of the words is adhered to within the context of the alleged offences

I will use as an example the NRL (National Rugby League) judiciary which is a panel based structure. One of the people on the panel (is a rotation system) must be a qualified legal practitioner with the remaining two panel members generally being ex-Players.

The legal is there to ensure that all rules are applied as per the legal definitions and that all punishments are conversant with rules and precedents (admittedly now n league they do have set rules that can get reductions for guilty pleas etc).

In at least one and maybe two cases in the NRL judiciary, the legal practioner is an ex-player themselves (Mal Cochrane)

Being done this way there is less appealing of the process (representative games not withstanding)

My take (and yeah I read some of the rules but read it all last year after Sepang actually) is that it is a good move provided it is implemented in a manner that assures independence, and independence can come with involvement of Race Direction.

Of real interest for me would be to implement the panel and then have them review the punishments issues as a 'training exercise' (would never be publicised) but I would love to know how close the end results would be between the Hanika and Rossi incidents

While we carry on about the punishment panel (well that is what I will call it), we have also missed (or have we) the rule change relating to mandated tyre pressure sensors that are to be implemented following the crash of Loris Baz which is has been said may have been due to over heated tyres caused by lower than recommended pressures

FIM mandate MotoGP tyre pressure sensors | MCN


The FIM have, in the wake of Loris Baz’s high-speed crash earlier this week at Sepang, mandaded the compulsory use of tyre pressure sensors for the forthcoming MotoGP season.

With a sensor supplier already in place for Moto2, which was already set to adapt the rule for 2016, the move is expected to be an easy roll-out for the premier class too. In fact, a number of teams, including the official Repsol Honda squad (pictured) were already running the sensors at the Sepang test.

The move comes after Baz’s crash was originally speculated to have been caused by the team running a pressure below that mandated by Michelin in a quest for more grip. A similar problem, causing a number of failures for Dunlop in 2015, was the reason for the introduction of the rule to the middleweight class.

The cause of Baz’s crash has yet to be determined, but did result in Michelin withdrawing their softest option tyres for the remainder of the test.



Existing regulations on this matter have been reinforced enabling the Technical Director and his staff, assisted by the engineers of the official tyre supplier, to check that minimum tyre pressures are respected.

Ultimately, such information will be recorded automatically via the datalogger and be available via download by the technical staff. However, as the equipment and method of electronically recording the information has still to be finalised the technical staff and the staff of the official tyre supplier are now authorised to manually verify tyre pressures at any time.

To quote the headline - First wave of Rossi Rules hit MotoGP Beachhead

Yes, not my headline ......... but from here Soup :: First Wave of Rossi Rules Hit MotoGP Beachhead :: 02-06-2016


This just in from the FIM:

FIM Grand Prix World Championship Decision of the Grand Prix Commission

The Grand Prix Commission, composed of Messrs. Carmelo Ezpeleta (Dorna, Chairman), Ignacio Verneda (FIM CEO), Herve Poncharal (IRTA) and Takanao Tsubouchi (MSMA) in the presence of Vito Ipollito (President FIM), Javier Alonso (Dorna) and Mike Trimby (IRTA, Secretary of the meeting), in a meeting held on February 4 in Geneva, made the following decisions:

Sporting Regulations

Effective Immediately

Race Direction and Stewards

The composition of Race Direction will remain unchanged with three members; Mike Webb (Race Director), Franco Uncini (FIM) and Javier Alonso (Dorna). However there will be a new appointment of Graham Webber as Deputy Race Director who will deputise for the Race Director when he is otherwise occupied.

Race Direction will continue to be primarily responsible for the efficient and safe running of events. However, the competence of Race Direction concerning the application of sanctions and penalties will be limited to those offences that can be considered as being indisputable matters of fact.

These would include such offences as pit lane speeding, passing under yellow flags, etc.

All other issues requiring further analysis of actions, including any incidences of dangerous riding, will be reviewed by the Stewards who will exclusively be responsible for issuing any sanctions and penalties on those matters. The Stewards will also be responsible for hearing any appeals and receiving any protests.

The panel of Stewards will comprise three members; Mike Webb and two other members appointed by the FIM. Mike Webb will be responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the Stewards, maintaining records and communicating decisions.
In future, any sanctions imposed by Race Direction or the Stewards will be communicated to the affected team by a secure E-mail system with automated confirmation that the message has been read. Confirmed penalties will also be displayed on timekeeping monitors and advised to the media.

Promotional Obligations for Riders

A number of obligations for riders to participate in promotional activities, already contained in the Participation Agreements between IRTA and the Teams, will now also be included in the Grand Prix regulations. Such obligations include the requirement for riders to participate in autograph signing sessions, press conferences, parade laps, etc. The effect is that non-compliance by riders can now result in sporting penalties in addition to the financial penalties contained in the Participation Agreements.


Technical Regulations
Effective Immediately
MotoGP Class Electronics

The procedure which enables the Technical Director to check specific maintenance channels on the internal datalogger, together with the precise list of compulsory channels available to him, was approved. The homologation procedure for sensors available from third party suppliers as well as those made by the motorcycle manufacturers was approved.

MotoGP Class Minimum Tyre Pressures

Existing regulations on this matter have been reinforced enabling the Technical Director and his staff, assisted by the engineers of the official tyre supplier, to check that minimum tyre pressures are respected. Ultimately, such information will be recorded automatically via the datalogger and be available via download by the technical staff. However, as the equipment and method of electronically recording the information has still to be finalised the technical staff and the staff of the official tyre supplier are now authorised to manually verify tyre pressures at any time.

Moto2 Class Quickshift Equipment

It has been identified that certain gearbox malfunctions in the Championship supplied engines are largely attributable to some of the quickshift components produced by third party suppliers. The Technical Director, in consultation with Externpro, will specify a brand and model of a proprietary quickshift product from a third party supplier that will be mandatory for this class. Actual implementation of this regulation will be enforced when the Technical Director is satisfied that all teams have had sufficient time to acquire the new material.



So now the riders MUST attend a minimum number of Autograph and other promotional activities ............... I say BS, let them race

Gaz said:

Yes, not my headline ......... but from here

Click to expand...

Rossi rules...was probably in reference to the manditory attendance of press conferences. Because ........ Rossi chickenshitted out of one at Sepang, then Carmelo just canceled them at Valencia.

Jumkie said:

Rossi rules...was probably in reference to the manditory attendance of press conferences. Because ........ Rossi chickenshitted out of one at Sepang, then Carmelo just canceled them at Valencia.

Click to expand...

Funny you say that Jums as to quote Krop from where I found the article (and apologies Krop, hope this is ok so if not, please advise and I will remove)

It's 46 who never turns up and refuses to do promo stuff. So this is more likely to hurt him than anyone else.


Now, fans of #46 remember that the article refers to forced appearances outside of their team and personal sponsor obligations

Casey was the guy who didn't like the promo stuff. Ah the irony.

TTT