An extra round if it was early in the season might well have increased VR's lead.
Last edited:
The Untouchables
- Thread starter J4rn0
- Start date
-
- Tags
- untouchables
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
An extra round if it was early in the season might well have increased VR's lead.
I tend to agree that the degree of danger was low, relatively speaking anyway, but don't see how this line of argument helps your overall case or exonerates Rossi, since if it was other than entirely fortuitous it increases the degree of premeditation involved on Rossi's part, and emphasises how far off the racing line he had gone.
I actually agree with another line of argument which has also been run about the incident, this being that a crash wasn't inevitable, although this doesn't mean Rossi still does not bear the responsibility for it. In the case of other riders with whom Rossi has (admittedly rarely) had contretemps, such as Gibernau, Stoner and Lorenzo I think he could pretty much have relied on their natural and immediate response being to avoid collision in this kind of circumstance. MM is a different animal, however, and as you said in the original post of the thread there was a problem in that there were 2 riders out there who didn't think normal rules apply to them,
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,802
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
Absolutely. Not premeditation really, because there wasn't the time, but the lucid intention of Rossi is out of the question. He didn't even try to say it was accidental. It is clear that Marquez didn't need to crash, he had plenty of good asphalt on his left, he could have just gone wider avoiding contact altogether. He certainly doesn't lack the reflexes and bike control to do that... But he was in that super defiant mode, full of adrenaline, so he chose to lean on Rossi. You want to push me out? I'll push you in. He touched Rossi's knee with his helmet, Rossi gave him that knee push (it wasn't a kick). Bam.
Not that it would have changed much, Rossi had already done too much and was punishable anyway, that Marquez crashed or not.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Michaelm, you kill me brother, so....Marquez didn't NEED to crash? I never quite get u. Normally you say stuff that's spot on then go pair shaped when trying to split hairs.
Well son, how did you end up at the bottom of the ravine?
Didn't you see that guy surprise me and run me off the road?
Yes, but I've watched it at 1/1000th the speed of real life, and at that super slow speed it looks like you had an hour to escape from the road raged guy barging into you.
Mike, you're funny dude. Giving an absolute insane bopper license to believe his fantasy puts you nearly in the same category.
Yes, yes, you sound complete sane, but that last part, when you said well we can't disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, run that by me again?
Well son, how did you end up at the bottom of the ravine?
Didn't you see that guy surprise me and run me off the road?
Yes, but I've watched it at 1/1000th the speed of real life, and at that super slow speed it looks like you had an hour to escape from the road raged guy barging into you.
Mike, you're funny dude. Giving an absolute insane bopper license to believe his fantasy puts you nearly in the same category.
Yes, yes, you sound complete sane, but that last part, when you said well we can't disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, run that by me again?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,802
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
If you cannot distinguish between a personal feeling (yes, I do feel they both were guilty) and actually invoking a punishment, it's not my fault.
You will concede one thing: that I knew and know very well that MM was "not punishable". And you will also concede that I never criticized Race Direction for not punishing him, or for punishing Rossi.
For anybody who cares to understand, my words are very clear in the context of my posts. But if you prefer to play the little game of quoting a few words out of context rather than really answering to what I have to say, what can I do. Unfortunately that makes for poor debate.
Last edited:
I can have a nuanced view.
I actually said even in the post to which you replied that any consequence of Rossi's illegal move is entirely down to him. MM is obviously in no way obliged to respond to the move in a manner of Rossi's choosing/how he might predict, or which minimises Rossi's offence.
My point was more that VR has gotten away with similar things previously, admittedly rarely but sometimes crucially, by relying on (I could argue exploiting) the character and professionalism of the opponents I mentioned. Certainly both Jerez 2005 and the Corkscrew 2008 would have resulted in crashes and riders being taken out without evasive action by the other rider, and while the Corkscrew was more a riding error Jerez 2005 was absolutely fully intentional.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,802
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Yes, I know, it's actually very typical of you, and perhaps it's because you're so intelligent, that you entertain all manner of viewpoints, but it drives me bonkers.
Yeah yeah, the girl wearing the short skirt could have brought it on herself in some nuanced way, no really, but to give the guy arguing in favor of the perpetrator is a bridge to far for me my friend.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,802
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
Or that something not so unexpectable happened, like Marquez and maybe Pedrosa beating Lorenzo? See, I'm not complaining about the Hondas not beating the Yamaha in this case, my comment is just to include all actual possibilities. Unless you think a Honda 1-2 was ruled out a priori...?
And this accepting your assumption that a Rossi starting in a decent grid position could not be there where it mattered at the end. Which canot be a given.
Last edited:
Nice one... but no, I never liked it. A Becks is better any day.
The Nastro Azzurro beer is bland and horrible. Don't mind the ordinary Peroni in the brown bottle or the double malted though.
Last edited:
Completely agree. Even if he could, No country man; Spanish, Italian, British or from wherever you'd like them to be from would ever .... a compatriots championship chances on the last couple laps of a season unless both are fighting for the same prize.
PS-
Johnny, is this really you? How have you been?
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Ah, I see, so again it's our confusion, not that you're words are contradictory.
Got it.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Iannone.
Frankly bro, I don't have a problem Pedrosa attempting to pass Lorenzo...if he could have managed it. I gain lots of respect, actually just astonished at Pedrosa's determined battle with Rossi at Aragon. Thing is, if Valencia 2013 is any indication, there was no way Lorenzo was going to allow that, not after RD sent out the message, you can do whatever to preserve a championship.
Just to bookend my involvement in this debate I'll share these trivial thoughts...
I was on my high horse about the lack of factual evidence supporting the public comments from Mike Webb about MM's "intent" and I asked a specific (and I thought rhetorical) question regarding RD and got a very specific answer from someone with a fairly intimate understanding of the motoGP Truman show: http://motogpforum.com/motogp/16683-untouchables-12.html#post392294
This gave me pause because it reminded me of three things...
It made me realise that, at the end of the day, guys like Webb are best placed to make these judgements and ultimately, their performance can and will be measured by the on-track consequences of the prevailing rider culture, coz, that is what they are managing.
On the particular incident, it's similar (only in principle!) to when you have two kids who are fighting and there is clear evidence that one of them is out of line, but you know very well that the other one has a history of being an antagonist and is equally in the wrong. So you hold them jointly responsible for what happened. It may look unfair to an outside observer, but, you know your kids: you understand them better than they understand themselves.
So I revised my view and decided to take a step back and consider it done and dusted for me and that arguing minutiae from an relatively uninformed position is a futile waste of energy.
I was on my high horse about the lack of factual evidence supporting the public comments from Mike Webb about MM's "intent" and I asked a specific (and I thought rhetorical) question regarding RD and got a very specific answer from someone with a fairly intimate understanding of the motoGP Truman show: http://motogpforum.com/motogp/16683-untouchables-12.html#post392294
This gave me pause because it reminded me of three things...
- The sheer volume of work that RD gets through in dealing with all of those egos in the fiercely competitive, immensely complicated three level arena while subjected to intense public scrutiny.
- The understanding of individual riders that they get from all those hard conversations and the subsequent, public fallout resulting from them.
- The need to guard the boundaries of the regulations from inside as well as outside and to build a culture that makes riders collectively accountable.
It made me realise that, at the end of the day, guys like Webb are best placed to make these judgements and ultimately, their performance can and will be measured by the on-track consequences of the prevailing rider culture, coz, that is what they are managing.
On the particular incident, it's similar (only in principle!) to when you have two kids who are fighting and there is clear evidence that one of them is out of line, but you know very well that the other one has a history of being an antagonist and is equally in the wrong. So you hold them jointly responsible for what happened. It may look unfair to an outside observer, but, you know your kids: you understand them better than they understand themselves.
So I revised my view and decided to take a step back and consider it done and dusted for me and that arguing minutiae from an relatively uninformed position is a futile waste of energy.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 248
- Location
- Adelaide
I don't think that knowing your riders personalities or ego's, regardless of their history, should have anything to do with decisions made by Race Direction. The decisions should be based solely on the incident at hand.
Hehe, yep I hear ya!
Not sure what you mean by ego there, I assume you mean the ego of the riders? Just for the record: I certainly was not inferring that there was any ego on Webb's part (I'm pretty sure you don't mean that but, just to be clear).
I don't share your views on that actually, my management experience tells me that the "thunderbolt from above" approach does not work: you can't build culture like that. The reason being that dialogue = understanding = realizations = learning = improvement.
Sure, the relationship between Webb and the riders needs to very professional, but there needs to be dialogue and he needs to understand them in order to manage their culture.
For what it's worth, my thinking was also informed by this article. If you scroll down to the part where he's talking about riding standards he discusses his method for working with Jack Miller for example, you might find that interesting.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Mike Webb is a hack and failed his duty. Cool Blue, it's fine you are humbled by the daunting task, but that's the job. Lets just focus on this one incident, so let's keep it simple. Mike Webb witnessed a rider deliberately crash another out in a fit of rage. Fact. Mike Webb then considered the championship points for said rider. Fact. Mike Webb then took no immediate action because of the championship impact. Fact. The offense merited an immediate action to black flag, he failed to do so. Fact. Mike Webb failed. You don't need to go considering that the poor guy has a difficult job, bla bla. That's his job, and frankly I don't think it's particularly difficult to be honest. Either way, he ...... up because he decided to consider championship rather than SAFETY!
What's so daunting about that? What more "information" do you feel you lack? Mike Webb had plenty enough information to make his decision quickly. Its because he started to consider irrelevant factors is how he went astray from the mission. Mike Webb doesn't need to know these guys personally, he just needs to look at each incident on its own merit as if the riders are faceless. Its because he did NOT do it like that is why this .... got into trouble making the easy and correct call. Lorenzo nailed it when he said, any other rider gets DQed, but Mike Webb consider it was ROSSI. In other words Mike Webb lost all impartiality to do his job.
Cool Blue, I don't see why you feel the need to back away from your stance on insisting Mike Webb consider factual evidence to then pronounce his judgment on "intent". You've been excellent on this specific point, why back away from it now? Why would Mike Webb ask the riders for their version only to decide the victim is a liar and the perpetrator was the honest one? Wtf?
Anyway, ALL this .... has been absolutely tainted by Rossi’s accusations, it's this power that has most every analyzing everything through that ........ lense. If everyone could (I'm amazed how difficult it's proven fo the majority) see it in the way they viewed the Australian GP immediately after the race, then everything could be more clear. But it seems few can escape the clutches of the effects of Rossi's accusations.
Cool Blue, what would have been your take had Rossi done this to Iannone at Phillip Island? Seriously, would you be implying you need to reconsider poor Mike Webb 's tough job, etc.?
No, because you wouldn't have been talking about this in the shadow of Rossi’s accusations! Thats exactly how this incident should be viewed, as if Rossi had done this to Iannone at Phillip Island, pre accusations, so as none of us would be viewing this through the ....... ........ lense Rossi provided all willing to see it from his absurd perspective. Mike Webb decided this with Rossi’s accusations in mind! And most of us here are doing the same, with very few exceptions.
What's so daunting about that? What more "information" do you feel you lack? Mike Webb had plenty enough information to make his decision quickly. Its because he started to consider irrelevant factors is how he went astray from the mission. Mike Webb doesn't need to know these guys personally, he just needs to look at each incident on its own merit as if the riders are faceless. Its because he did NOT do it like that is why this .... got into trouble making the easy and correct call. Lorenzo nailed it when he said, any other rider gets DQed, but Mike Webb consider it was ROSSI. In other words Mike Webb lost all impartiality to do his job.
Cool Blue, I don't see why you feel the need to back away from your stance on insisting Mike Webb consider factual evidence to then pronounce his judgment on "intent". You've been excellent on this specific point, why back away from it now? Why would Mike Webb ask the riders for their version only to decide the victim is a liar and the perpetrator was the honest one? Wtf?
Anyway, ALL this .... has been absolutely tainted by Rossi’s accusations, it's this power that has most every analyzing everything through that ........ lense. If everyone could (I'm amazed how difficult it's proven fo the majority) see it in the way they viewed the Australian GP immediately after the race, then everything could be more clear. But it seems few can escape the clutches of the effects of Rossi's accusations.
Cool Blue, what would have been your take had Rossi done this to Iannone at Phillip Island? Seriously, would you be implying you need to reconsider poor Mike Webb 's tough job, etc.?
No, because you wouldn't have been talking about this in the shadow of Rossi’s accusations! Thats exactly how this incident should be viewed, as if Rossi had done this to Iannone at Phillip Island, pre accusations, so as none of us would be viewing this through the ....... ........ lense Rossi provided all willing to see it from his absurd perspective. Mike Webb decided this with Rossi’s accusations in mind! And most of us here are doing the same, with very few exceptions.
Last edited:
I saw some similarity between Jack Miller in that late season Moto 3 race last year where he kept putting his bike where Marquez junior wanted to go and MM in the Sepang race, except Jack was rather more blatant but again with most of his manoeuvres not illegal ; Jack also had a view with which some including me had some sympathy that Marquez junior had taken him out in a wet race earlier in the season,
Last edited:
Sorry J4 but .........
The 3 points did not and does not have the same effect as a black flag that would have resulted in a 16 championship point loss and had VR at 9 points behind going into Valencia
It also is a slap on the wrist punishment (be it Rossi or others) as what kind of deterrent does it present when all it does it place him to the rear of the grid, and then only because of the 1 point penalty accrued earlier in the year. In essence, the penalty of 3 points by itself is a feather slap.
Actually Jums, this is itself an interesting topic ….......... the fact that because we so often see riders get up and walk away, seemingly uninjured, for some reason it is expected that this will occur all the time and thus the element of danger is (incorrectly) diminished in some viewers eyes because the injury is rare.
F*ck that, injury is not rare it is just luck and to a degree, together good track management and improved riders safety (gear and bike) that we do not see more injuries at our meetings
Again J4 – not FACT as you claim but YOUR OPINION
I personally know of a person who was killed when they fell off a horse that was walking …........ they were killed because of the way that their head impacted the ground (they had a helmet on at the time)
I also know a motorcycle racer who is a paraplegic because he fell off his machine at around 15 kmh which on grass at a track day. As he was falling he landed on top of his head as the bike itself impacted the side of the neck.
As an example, the majority of fatal accident in NSW occur at speeds less than the posted speed limit with more deaths in 60kmh or less zones. The speed is not the determining factor in a crash, it is the ambient actions of people, the way the bike falls, the body etc ............... people have tripped and died from hitting their head, to say that nobody would have died is pure BS ............ and that is based on facts
But that can be ignored as he is not a respected person, journalist, rider, race etc etc etc
And here in lay the issue J4 …............ people are trying to defend Rossi in some way, shape or form when he openly admitted that NONE of the slowing was accidental and that ALL of his action that ultimately led to MM falling where calculated, deliberate and fully intended to impede Marquez (and you will note that nowhere there do I say that it was deliberate to crash MM)
There can be no excuse with the fact that VR created a dangerous situation by slowing unnecessarily on a 'live' race track.
To me, this is a point that is being grossly misrepresented by the yellow horde …...... it happened, he admitted it and yet somehow the focus is on 'what may have caused it', and not the action itself.
Good post Cool
I said from day 1 that I have no issues with the manner in which RD acted (I do disagree with the penalty applied) and personally I was against any black flag at the time and remain so today as the variables are to huge ….....
My belief was post race penalties should have applied
Not the decisions, but the way in which they are handled or communicated could and at times, should be based on the riders personality or ego.
The job is to interpret and penalise, it is not to issue the penalty in a manner that may be seen as demeaning (this was not done by RD)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 10,518
- Location
- Tennessee
Oh, so you feel like he should have been punished, but didn't publicly call for him to be punished. That's your defense? If you don't want your words quoted, don't say them. I have said twice now, when I first read your original post, what jumped out to me was how you were working both sides of the fence to cover all bases when you got called out . In the end, you feel that Marquez should have been punished, your words, not mine.
Similar threads
