The Untouchables

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Jumkie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was taking issue with Webb's public sanctioning of Marquez in the post I referenced and that's what I had in mind. With regard to all the other stuff regarding the timing and severity of the punishment for Rossi and the impartiality of the decision, I don't think I've posted any view on that because I don't feel knowledgeable enough to have one and therefore, I'm not arguing against you on that. I posted a lot on explaining in great detail that my interpretation of the video is that Rossi kicked Marquez's handlebars and that's what took him down. I focussed on that because I thought it was an important point that was widely denied and because I had the video evidence in front of me and the ability to analyze the physics of it.

I didn't say that the RD job was "daunting" I didn't even say it was difficult. I wasn't in any way being an apologist for the decision or suggesting in any way that the process was hampered by pressure or difficulty. My point there - perhaps badly explained - is that they have a unique perspective to really understand what's going on because of the volume of work that they do and the number of hard conversations they have with the riders and their teams. All that presents a massive learning opportunity that no-one else has. I'm talking about their learning opportunity, not the difficulty or otherwise of their job.

Regarding Webb's statement about 'intent": yes, I revised my view on that based on the three principles that I explained.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by J4rn0
No way anybody would have died there, because they were at low speed, at the edge of the track and way off the racing line, -- no riders were passing there. Fact.
Click to expand...

Oh, fact huh? It's not just about death, it's about injury...you say no way he could have got injured? Well here is your counter argument:

Let's look at another low speed Sepang Crash in which a riders ankle was badly snapped at "Low speed" because an unforeseen event occured was that his foot got stuck in some of the astroturf that got knocked up by the bike..namely Stefan Bradl in 2013: FACT

PA1429524.jpg


The same could have EASILY happened to Marquez.
 
Last edited:
povol said:
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.
Click to expand...

My position was and is clear if you care to know it from what I wrote. As Race Direction said, my position is that Marquez was "guilty but not punishable". You can twist my words the way you want, but you cannot change that. If you care to debate honestly, debate that position. If you want to play with words, do it alone.
 
#22 said:
Oh, fact huh? It's not just about death, it's about injury...you say no way he could have got injured? Well here is your counter argument:

Let's look at another low speed Sepang Crash in which a riders ankle was badly snapped at "Low speed" because an unforeseen event occured was that his foot got stuck in some of the astroturf that got knocked up by the bike..namely Stefan Bradl in 2013: FACT

PA1429524.jpg


The same could have EASILY happened to Marquez.
Click to expand...

Of course you cannot know beforehand how dangerous any crash can be. But Rossi's intention was not to make Marquez crash. He wanted to push him wide and slow him down to send the message "what the .... you are doing?". You may think Rossi wanted him to crash -- I don't think so, precisely because you never know what will happen when bikes bump into each other. You can also get hurt.

So, here we are judging a crash after it happened. I watched the footage many times and no way that crash could have had any serious consequences, because of the low speed, the wide and asphalted area all around, and the way they were clear of the racing line.

I also maintain that Maruqez could have easily avoided crashing if he had not insisted leaning on Rossi. My opinion if you want, but watch the footage again.
 
The Bradl incident happened at Turn 1 that has more run off including tarmac, than turn 14. Yet it is the astroturf on the edge of the track, approx 1 metre from where Rossi forced Marquez out to, that injured Bradl. And you still want to say "No way" to that crash having potentially serious consequences?

Maybe Rossi didn't want Marquez to crash, that cannot be proven either way. However, what is fact, is that Rossi put Marquez in a position where he did crash.

As others have said, this happened so long ago now that I am not giving any more energy into it.
 
#22 said:
The Bradl incident happened at Turn 1 that has more run off including tarmac, than turn 14. Yet it is the astroturf on the edge of the track, approx 1 metre from where Rossi forced Marquez out to, that injured Bradl. And you still want to say "No way" to that crash having potentially serious consequences?

Maybe Rossi didn't want Marquez to crash, that cannot be proven either way. However, what is fact, is that Rossi put Marquez in a position where he did crash.

As others have said, this happened so long ago now that I am not giving any more energy into it.
Click to expand...

I maintain that there was no way a crash like that, at that position, at that speed, with that dynamic, could have had serious consequences. Of course one can say that only afterwards...! Cannot be known beforehand and cannot apply to all possible variations that could happen at that same position, at different speeds, and with different dynamics.

About the rest, fair enough.
 
J4rn0 said:
I maintain that there was no way a crash like that, at that position, at that speed, with that dynamic, could have had serious consequences. Of course one can say that only afterwards...! Cannot be known beforehand and cannot apply to all possible variations that could happen at that same position, at different speeds, and with different dynamics.

About the rest, fair enough.
Click to expand...

J4, all well and good ................... but it is commonly accepted that one cannot accurately predict the outcomes of a motorcycle accident purely because they are bikes, and as such they are prone to reactions outside of the standard norm or deviation.

Even at low speed, a rider can fall in so many different ways and with so many different complications. A rider falling simply in a low side motion is one thing, but what if their left leg gets 'caught' as they fall, or they twist the handlebars as they fall, the bikes behaviour and reactions will be different to a classic and 'standard' low side.

It is these very complicating factors that means that at no point can we say with surety that 'the accident was not one that would or could have' caused an injury. Circumstances of the time and day will determine if there is an injury involved and while it is very true to say that an incident 'looks less likely to result in an injury', we can never know for certain until the bike stops sliding, the rider stops rolling and the marshalls have cleared it all up.
 
Last edited:
J4rn0 said:
My position was and is clear if you care to know it from what I wrote. As Race Direction said, my position is that Marquez was "guilty but not punishable". You can twist my words the way you want, but you cannot change that. If you care to debate honestly, debate that position. If you want to play with words, do it alone.
Click to expand...


Just to clarify please J4rn0, in your words, what exactly is Marquez "guilty" of?
 
J4rn0 logic: Rossi didn't 'mean' him to crash, he just deliberately put him in a predicament to crash, and when he didn't crash, Rossi kept manipulating his bike and speed to increase a predicament to crash...but Rossi didn't 'mean' him to crash.

But Marquez crashed because of the predicament Rossi deliberately put him in.

J4rn0 logic: but still Rossi didn't mean it because Rossi said so.



J4rn0 logic: There is no way something bad could have happened to Marquez in a low speed/at rest crash.

But look at theses many different examples where riders were injured or killed proves you wrong.

J4rn0 logic: There is no way something bad could have happened to Marquez in a low speed crash.


J4rn0 logic: I 'feel" Marquez deserved punishment.

But Marquez didn't do anything wrong.

J4rn0 logic: I didn't say Race Direction should punish Marc.

Yes you did, when you said you 'felt' they BOTH should be punished by Race Direction.

J4rn0 logic: Oh that, you read it wrong, I "feel" Marquez should be punish.

No wonder it impossible to debate you, we don't employ J4rn0 logic, we just use actual logic.
 
Last edited:
Jumkie said:
J4rn0 logic: Rossi didn't 'mean' him to crash, he just deliberately put him in a predicament to crash, and when he didn't crash, Rossi kept manipulating his bike and speed to increase a predicament to crash...but Rossi didn't 'mean' him to crash.

But Marquez crashed because of the predicament Rossi deliberately put him in.

J4rn0 logic: but still Rossi didn't mean it because Rossi said so.



J4rn0 logic: There is no way something bad could have happened to Marquez in a low speed/at rest crash.

But look at theses many different examples where riders were injured or killed proves you wrong.

J4rn0 logic: There is no way something bad could have happened to Marquez in a low speed crash.


J4rn0 logic: I 'feel" Marquez deserved punishment.

But Marquez didn't do anything wrong.

J4rn0 logic: I didn't say Race Direction should punish Marc.

Yes you did, when you said you 'felt' they BOTH should be punished by Race Direction.

J4rn0 logic: Oh that, you read it wrong, I "feel" Marquez should be punish.

No wonder it impossible to debate you, we don't employ J4rn0 logic, we just use actual logic.
Click to expand...

Here comes Jums, the fiction writer! :)
I understand that for you it is problematic to actually debate with me (you lose), so you prefer debating with a virtual me created by your imagination. Wow, that is certainly convenient -- and much easier, uh? :p
 
J4rn0 said:
Read the statement by Mark Webb. I fully agree with what he said.
Click to expand...

j4, the issue with your agreeing is that Webb did not say that MM did indeed impede Rossi, his comment was that 'Race Direction believe that Marquez was riding to impede Rossi'

As I have said a number of times, that is an opinion as were it found to be fact he should have used the words 'Race Direction found that ......'

Personally I believe that pigs can fly, doesn't make it true now does it but I believe it because I want to .............

On the other hand, I know that it has been found that pigs cannot fly as there is no supporting evidence, no scientific evidence and no visual evidence
 
Gaz said:
j4, the issue with your agreeing is that Webb did not say that MM did indeed impede Rossi, his comment was that 'Race Direction believe that Marquez was riding to impede Rossi'

As I have said a number of times, that is an opinion as were it found to be fact he should have used the words 'Race Direction found that ......'

Personally I believe that pigs can fly, doesn't make it true now does it but I believe it because I want to .............

On the other hand, I know that it has been found that pigs cannot fly as there is no supporting evidence, no scientific evidence and no visual evidence
Click to expand...

now that I've read this terrible analogy I think I better understand some of you people's thinking on the subject.
 
steeeeeve said:
now that I've read this terrible analogy I think I better understand some of you people's thinking on the subject.
Click to expand...

And what is your "thinking" , other than that Rossi can never be in the wrong. Anyone supporting an argument that a rider "fixing" a race by winning was extreme provocation and justifies one of the losers of that race taking out that rider in the following race because he wouldn't pull over and let him past is not in a strong position to criticise the arguments of others, whether by employment of weak analogies or any other means.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Segfault
Ducati Dream Team
Replies
9
Views
893
p4p1
P
AnnoyingTwit
2024 Round 20 Petronas GP of Malaysia - Petronas Sepang International Circuit
7 8 9
Replies
164
Views
3K
Sennas_Caress
S
#22
Top 10 MotoGP rider moves of the MotoGP era.
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
#22
#22
#22
Alex Marquez was blocked by Yamaha from joining SRT in MotoGP in 2021
Replies
11
Views
720
michaelm
M
#22
Are aero bikes/Michelin tyres the cause of rider inconsistency?
Replies
4
Views
327
Hollywood
Hollywood

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top