MotoGP 2019

[the-evaluator]

The rules are the rules but I agree, it does seem harsh. Especially when you consider that Marquez got the same penalty in the race 12 months ago for stalling on the grid, bump starting his bike and re-taking his position.

 

[jaybee]

I expect nothing less than a schoolboy rant from the unprofessional Cal Crashlow after the race with statements like "I wasn't rolling so...". What a tool. The rules are there for a reason to prevent any rolling momentum advantage, which he would have had in that situation. The advantage would have been so small to be almost immeasurable yes, but that's not the point.

The law of physics dictate that there will be an advantage in acceleration if you have already overcome the inertia to start the movement of the wheel. We can't measure such small advantages and say that this much is ok, but this much is not, and therefore we have a hard set rule that you must be stationery when the lights go out. It's quite simple. It's a penalty. Don't try to guess the lights or make scoolboy mistakes. Maybe if he crashed less he'd have better feel and strength in his hands to prevent the creep. He's stubborn and a complete moaner. Reminds me of Casey Stoner at times, just with a lot less talent.

 

[the-evaluator]

Get off the fence, you'll get splinters in your bum

I agree to a point though, Cal definitely was rolling so according to the rules he got a penalty. Do I think the penalty was a bit harsh? Yes, but the rules are clear so I don't think he has any right to throw his toys out of the pram.

 

[Lakeland]

What a moron, I was watching him defend himself after the race. Talk about blinkers! It couldn't be more clear that he was rolling.

 

[Shimmy]

Was definitely rolling, but penalty doesn't fit the crime. Would have been the perfect opportunity to use the long lap penalty.

 

[Lakeland]

Was definitely rolling, but penalty doesn't fit the crime. Would have been the perfect opportunity to use the long lap penalty.

Agreed, long lap would be the ideal penalty but he’s such a baby, take it on the chin and maybe just suggest a change to the rules instead of making stupid comments about those applying the rules properly lol.

 

[the-evaluator]

Long lap isn't an option, the rules are clear:


If the long lap where an option then I would agree, it would have been a much more appropriate penalty.

 

[timmeh]

Long lap isn't an option, the rules are clear:


If the long lap where an option then I would agree, it would have been a much more appropriate penalty.

Yeah the rules around that definitely need updating based on the advantaged gained from jumping the start. Hopefully they'll revisit it sooner rather than later.

 

[the-evaluator]

The rules definitely need looking at.

 

[Entai]

Personally i think the rules and penalty balance fine with the "crime"

A long lap penalty will only give a penalty of 3 to 4 seconds which in the grand scheme of things is not a lot to be fair.

Lets face it Marquez could have done two nearly 3 and still won the race easily.

A ride through is on average around 20 seconds lost I believe, so I think is a fairer penalty, otherwise we might get the situation where several people think OK I will jump the start its only 3 secs lost I can easily make that up later, 20 seconds is far more of a deterrent that no one wants to get lumbered with.

Plus the long lap penalty has only really been brought in for track limits violations, but at the moment cannot as the rules are explicit.

 

[kinobestew123]

The video shows everybody else except Cal perfectly stationary until the lights go out. I don't believe the rules need changing at all and if anything, that last paragraph about minor movement and subsequent stopping should be removed. When the lights come on that should be it, no movement whatsoever. Then it removes any possible confusion or argument.

It reminds me of Guy Martin in the 2015 IoM TT when he went a fraction over 60kph down the pit lane and got a 30 second penalty for it. He argued that it was so marginally over that the penalty didn't fit the crime. But ultimately if 60kph isn't the limit then what is it? 60.1kph? 60.5kph? 61kph? Everyone might as well just set their limiter slightly over if there is some leeway. Given the fractions of seconds that can be involved in a winning margin, it's important to get everything spot on.

 

[AndyCr15]

He argued that it was so marginally over that the penalty didn't fit the crime. But ultimately if 60kph isn't the limit then what is it? 60.1kph? 60.5kph? 61kph?

No, it's 60kph. I don't think your argument holds. From what you say, he didn't say it should have been allowed, just that the penalty didn't fit the crime. It's like if you get caught going over 100mph on the motorway you lose your license, but 71mph is 3 points... but then they change it to 71mph and you could lose your license. Yes, you can argue 'well it's over the speed limit, stop whining'... the point he makes is it's not proportional, not that 60.1kph should be allowed.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Thanks for posting that footage. Clearly he was rolling. I wouldn't object to seeing a rule change where they add a time penalty to your finish time for something that small. Obviously if you've launched, crossed your place line and are hitting 2nd gear when the lights go out a ride through penalty fits the crime but a 5 second penalty would seem more fitting to Cal's crime.

 

[kinobestew123]

No, it's 60kph. I don't think your argument holds. From what you say, he didn't say it should have been allowed, just that the penalty didn't fit the crime. It's like if you get caught going over 100mph on the motorway you lose your license, but 71mph is 3 points... but then they change it to 71mph and you could lose your license. Yes, you can argue 'well it's over the speed limit, stop whining'... the point he makes is it's not proportional, not that 60.1kph should be allowed.

The problem with trying to develop a system which is proportional to the issue is that it would require a perfectly linear sliding scale of penalty based on exactly how much advantage you gained.

In Cal's instance for example, people are talking above about having a long lap penalty for some jump starts and a pit lane ridethrough for others. How do you judge who gets which penalty? Race officials judgement? Certainly doesn't seem fair. The altenative is that you build in some kind of measure like you're not allowed to be doing more than x mph or not to have left the box, etc. But then somebody will exceed those measures by a fraction and the whole argument starts again where being bumped into the pit lane ridethrough is deemed harsh.

I don't know a lot about athletics but in a 100m running race, you're simply disqualified for jump starting.

 

[Entai]

This whole we should have penalties that fit the crime thing is so wrong.

You broke the rules, the rules state the penalty, everyone knows it, so just get on with life.


To follow on with peoples example of speeding on public roads, if every speed camera was accurate and set at 70.0mph, and the penalty was lifetime ban from ever driving again, if you go over 70.0mph no one anywhere would ever drive faster than 60 or 65, just in case.

Because to be fair not every camera even works, and there is generally a bit of a leeway till actual prosecution (10% +2mph or whatever it is), and even then its only 3 points, people think its worth taking the risk, as you are unlikely to be caught most of the time, (not enough police or cameras about), make it a proper penalty, a serious deterrent, and people stop thinking its worth the risk and just obey.

The rules and penalties need to be black and white, with zero grey areas liable for interpretation.

Every time anyone brings interpretation into it, or stewards judgement, then there is perceived leeway, and that is wrong.

Lets face facts here, these guys are among pretty much the best riders in the world, they have the skills to never jump start, always ride between track limits and never go outside the rules, but they constantly weigh up options and decide if its worth taking certain risks or not, here and there, as they ride round, looking for minor gains that, will give place gains, that add up to more points in the championship.

Make it an instant 3 race ban every time their wheel touches or crosses track limit lines, and they will ride within in them without fail, and there would be zero need for long lap penalties or ride through penalties etc. as the minor gain of crossing a track limit line here and there is not worth, a 3 race ban and the points that will be lost because of that, so every rider will perfectly ride within track limits lines.

Ok so slight exaggeration, but you get the point, rules are rules, and need penalties that people do not want to incur no matter what.

 

[AndyCr15]

I don't know a lot about athletics but in a 100m running race, you're simply disqualified for jump starting.

Tbf, no you don't. You start the race over and if you do it again your disqualified (well, you used to, unless they changed it!)

The problem with trying to develop a system which is proportional to the issue is that it would require a perfectly linear sliding scale of penalty based on exactly how much advantage you gained.

In Cal's instance for example, people are talking above about having a long lap penalty for some jump starts and a pit lane ridethrough for others. How do you judge who gets which penalty? Race officials judgement? Certainly doesn't seem fair.

I'm fairly sure in other sports this is done. It happens in F1 a lot. Someone does something wrong, the race officials spend time looking at it while the race is going on and they decide on one of the two or three options they have.

rules are rules, and need penalties that people do not want to incur no matter what.

True. And should match the severity of the rule they broke. I know you say it's wrong, but no, this is how life works generally

 

[Entai]

Tbf, no you don't. You start the race over and if you do it again your disqualified (well, you used to, unless they changed it!)

Indeed they have changed it, one strike and you are out now applies, it has been like that since 2003.

Same in Swimming as well, one false start and you are disqualified completely and immediately.

I'm fairly sure in other sports this is done. It happens in F1 a lot. Someone does something wrong, the race officials spend time looking at it while the race is going on and they decide on one of the two or three options they have.

But as you say in F1 they explicitly state in the rules that there are options to what penalty can be applied to various offences, and that stewards will look at the offence and decide what one to apply.

In MotoGP, the rules explicitly state a ride through is the penalty for a false start, there are no other options available in the rules, and it is not up to the stewards to discuss and apply penalties as they think necessary.



Maybe the rules will be looked at and changed, to be honest I hope not, I think straight forward simple rules are far better than various options that someone who has had a bad day gets to choose from, that can introduce all sorts of other issues.

 

[AndyCr15]

Maybe the rules will be looked at and changed, to be honest I hope not, I think straight forward simple rules are far better than various options that someone who has had a bad day gets to choose from, that can introduce all sorts of other issues.

Personally I would hope they do change them, so punishment can be proportionate to whatever has happened.

 

[Entai]

Personally I would hope they do change them, so punishment can be proportionate to whatever has happened.

If every other rider can stay still at the start of the GP, but you are moving, so immediately gaining an advantage over all riders who are completely stationary, (however minor that advantage is perceived to be, is completely immaterial, and irrelevant) you should be punished.

The rules for many years have clearly stated, you move, you get a drive through, no if's, no and's, no or's, just straight you do A you get B.

How hard is that to understand, and how can it be anything but perfectly fair.

At least he got to carry on the race, in some sports as mentioned any false start and its immediate disqualification, there could easily be an argument that it should be like that for every sport.


Or yet another argument.

What if it had been Marquez who had been called moving at the start and only given a long lap penalty (as many seem to think that is a more proportional punishment) and lost maybe 3 seconds or so ?

If he took his penalty on the same lap Cal took his ride through, Marquez would have come out of the penalty lap still in first place, (he was at that point, nearly 4 seconds ahead of the rest of the field) how would that have been fair punishment ?

Everyone would be calling it unfair and that he should have had a ride through.

 

[Shimmy]

Or yet another argument.

What if it had been Marquez who had been called moving at the start and only given a long lap penalty (as many seem to think that is a more proportional punishment) and lost maybe 3 seconds or so ?

If he took his penalty on the same lap Cal took his ride through, Marquez would have come out of the penalty lap still in first place, (he was at that point, nearly 4 seconds ahead of the rest of the field) how would that have been fair punishment ?

Everyone would be calling it unfair and that he should have had a ride through.

People are questioning the penalty due to the negligible if any advantage that Crutchlow got from his start. If Marquez had done the same I'm sure the reaction would have been the same. Whether he's got a 1 second lead or 10 second lead should make no difference in applying the penalty. It's the infringement and advantage gained that should be looked at alone.

Marquez deservedly got a ride through last year at this race. He stalled his bike on the grid, bump started it, went the wrong way back into his starting slot instead of starting from the pit lane. Much worse.
He was given his ride through when he had taken the lead and it cost him the race win. If he started from the pit lane his pace was so good that he would have won it regardless even after stalling on the grid.

Take that and compare it to Crutchlow and you can understand why Cal is aggrieved.