John Gallagher | The Inside Line Podcast 14

John Gallagher may have the toughest gig in the sport. As the race director for the Monster Energy Supercross series, he's part of the crew that has to make decisions and has to dispense penalties when things get out of line.

GuyB
4/10/2019 9:31pm
s1600 041019gallagher1600 577944

Being a ref in any sport is tough. But  judging from some of the comments that we've seen in the forum lately, people misunderstand not only what he does, but some of the hows and why that goes into a lot of the decision-making process. That's why we asked John to sit down for a chat.

 

Want more Inside Line podcasts? Click the link!

Related:
John Gallagher
The Inside Line Podcast
2019 Monster Energy Supercross
14 comments

View replies to: John Gallagher | The Inside Line Podcast

c50 page06 1554156083
Indian_Dunes_4ever
7 years ago
Thanks for taking the time to interview him. For the rational folks...this is good stuff.
1
avatar
mikec265
7 years ago
Is it possible to get a Q and A with him?
2
c50 pina 1483716941
tingo
7 years ago
Good interview Steve. John's line about "we're making these decisions with regards to what's best for the sport and also what's best for the paddock" is a bit unsettling. IMO, it should be "we're making these decisions based on what's in the rulebook." If the rulebook needs adjusting to make it better for the sport and paddock, adjust it (which John touches on towards the end of the podcast), but don't selectively enforce what is currently written based on what you feel is more appropriate in a particular situation. I still maintain that they got the Webb advantage/no advantage decision completely wrong, but given how many time he mentions "intent," it is not surprising that they let literally let him slide. Being race director isn't an easy job, and I'm glad that they have implemented the three-man format for race direction; I imagine John is, too. They also seem to be working in the right direction in terms of continually improving the rulebook with input from various interested parties.
3
c50 110811guyb redbud 1449985751
GuyB
7 years ago
I figured when we did this, every word or sentence would get parsed out. If I remember the reference, he was talking about how penalties are handed out, which there's latitude on. For example, a big dollar penalty for one guy could be included in the cost of doing business. For a privateer or rider without as much support, it would be something that completely sidelines him.
c50 pina 1483716941
tingo
7 years ago
Nof really parsing words, just quoting what he said. I respect John for doing this in the first place, and I’m not of the “burn him at the stake” camp like a lot of others, including riders that compete under his rule. Like I said, it’s a tough job and they were wise to create a race direction panel instead of leaving it solely up to John. But no, he was not talking about inequity in penalties, the line I quoted was directly after he talked about judging whether an advantage was gained. As for the penalty example, it’s yet another example of subjective judgment being used that makes the sport look comically unprofessional. Change the penalty based on the rider, team, or their budget? That’s insane. These guys all signed up for and compete in the same series. Why not also consider how well liked/popular a rider is when determining penalties? Or are they already?
c50 IMG 3931 1546570351
dkg
7 years ago
Tingo. I understand your thoughts on the penalty. Difficulty in this sport is the dramatic differences in the economic position of the riders and teams. The red flag penalty scheme discussed by Gallagher seemed like a good approach to address the disparity. A penalty should accomplish 2 things. 1 inflict punishment and 2 correct future behavior. With such differences between riders and their resources it is difficult in this sport to construct adequate penalties.
c50 51995CBA BB84 44F5 9DBB E0DE6C971410 1657994307
B00tySweat33
7 years ago
Intent is worthless. Actions have consequences regardless of someone’s intent and the rules should be enforced the same across the board. These guys have worked too hard to be favored or hated based on what three guys think.
3
c50 IMG 3931 1546570351
dkg
7 years ago
Good interview. Sounds to me like a rational guy. Sure, I am not going to agree with every decision, but, I can't find fault with the approach as articulated.
1
c50 page06 1554156083
Indian_Dunes_4ever
7 years ago
Once again...the screaming web-monkeys, armchair quarterbacks and keyboard commandos have been put in their place by facts.
c50 633288 1480551795
Kenny Lingus
7 years ago
I don't think most people understand that without the OEM's there would be no series. You have to favor them a bit. I believe that's what he meant with keeping the paddock happy remark. I prefer the term Race Judge because he has to use experience and knowledge to make decisions, like a judge. I think he does a good job.
1
avatar
VintageMotoMan
7 years ago
OK...So John Gallagher, as listed by his own self promotional resume, has officiated at some of the most seminal events in our sport. He appears to be the most experienced official in our sport ( in the USA, at least ), and he notes many instances of things going right ( in this season, Musquin jumping on the red flag, the Barcia corner incident, etc ). What didn't even garner a mention was the FIM intervention into drug testing and how unfair it appears to at least two riders in particular. No hearing as yet on Broc Tickle? WTF? Does Mr. Gallagher even have any weight to pull within the current FIM structure? The idea of "we're making these decisions with regards to what's best for the sport and also what's best for the paddock" does not address sticking to the rules, and, in fact, leaves one to see things addressed as controversies always have been ( i.e. behind the scenes ). When do the rules account for abject fairness being violated as in the Broc Tickle affair? I'm sure that Mr. Gallagher is a good man, and a great official, but this interview does leave some reasonable gaps for some.
1