What will Jeremy Martin's penalty be?

slipdog
Profile picture for user slipdog
Posts
10044
Joined
7/25/2009
Location
Nor Cal, CA US
slipdog 7/24/2017 4:02pm
7/24/2017 4:02pm
Does anyone know if I can run Rotella T in my 4 stroke?
slumpstone
Profile picture for user slumpstone
Posts
366
Joined
9/22/2006
Location
Thomasville, GA US
slumpstone 7/24/2017 4:04pm
7/24/2017 4:04pm
slipdog wrote:
Does anyone know if I can run Rotella T in my 4 stroke?
No, but you can cook with it
Jrewing
Profile picture for user Jrewing
Posts
2865
Joined
1/4/2014
Location
AU
Jrewing 7/24/2017 5:30pm
7/24/2017 5:30pm
slipdog wrote:
Does anyone know if I can run Rotella T in my 4 stroke?
Don't be a Dudley Dawson.. go count the strokes on your Husky! I think you're a couple strokes out
zookrider62!
Profile picture for user zookrider62!
Posts
5920
Joined
12/22/2008
Location
Plano, TX US
Fantasy
719th
zookrider62! 7/24/2017 6:00pm
7/24/2017 6:00pm
Johnny Depp wrote:
A "crash" off the track should in itself be a detriment to your track position, not end up in the same place.
This is what drives me nuts. Going off the track should be a costly mistake, but it isnt in mx/sx. As long as you dont pass anyone you can go in and off the track as you please.

As others have stated, if you go off the the track and miss a portion of the track, a pit stop should be mandatory.

The Shop

See All »
kkawboy14
Profile picture for user kkawboy14
Posts
11494
Joined
6/5/2015
Location
TX US
kkawboy14 7/24/2017 6:13pm
7/24/2017 6:13pm Edited Date/Time 7/24/2017 6:14pm
You guys don't see that there is a difference between intentionally cutting the track and unintentionally? Yikes
tingo
Profile picture for user tingo
Posts
1165
Joined
8/16/2016
Location
Orlando, FL US
tingo 7/24/2017 6:20pm
7/24/2017 6:20pm
Chris_Cooksey wrote:
DC It's an easy solution, if you go off the track and are unable to re-enter close to the same spot where you exited then the...
DC

It's an easy solution, if you go off the track and are unable to re-enter close to the same spot where you exited then the rider must do a stop and go in the mechanics area. If the rider doesn't do a "stop and go" then they are subjected to a more serious punishment.

Mistakes shouldn't be mulligans!

Later,

P.S. I would implement this at the beginning of next season, thus giving riders, teams and officials time to learn exactly what is expected.
There will always be judgement, and that's ok. Trying to make judgements consistent amongst different (yet similar) scenarios is the difficult part, and that's what rubs people the wrong way. When I watched JMart's track cut live, I immediately thought that he would (and should) be penalized for it. Weege and Grant were debating it, too, with Grant bringing up the time he was penalized for doing "something similar." Seems to me that the fair decision for the referee in this case is to err on the side of caution. If the rider messed up and it's even debatable that he "gained an advantage", you penalize him. Jeremy's parents have undoubtedly sent him to time out on that very property for lesser offenses; no reason the AMA shouldn't ding him a few positions/seconds for cutting the track in a professional race. If the rider feels wronged and has a strong enough case to prove it, they can use the appeals process.

Also, I like Chris' proposed solution as an easy to understand and implement way to handle this. Stop and go if you cut the track and can't (or don't, in this case) reenter where you went off. Make the stop at least 5-10 seconds; it is a penalty after all.
LoudLove
Profile picture for user LoudLove
Posts
1741
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
US
LoudLove 7/24/2017 6:25pm
7/24/2017 6:25pm
kkawboy14 wrote:
You guys don't see that there is a difference between intentionally cutting the track and unintentionally? Yikes
Intent should not play a role as to the base penalty for the infraction. To reference DC's analogy above, if a pitcher hits a batter, either intentionally or by accident, the penalty is the same: the batter takes a base. The umpire has the discretion to implement further action (i.e. ejection), but the baseline penalty remains the same.

It was to Jeremy's advantage to re-enter on the downhill section, as he avoided the obstacle that caused the initial incident. There is little doubt that his subsequent tip-over quelled the need for a protest, but that should not play a role in implementing the penalty.

And while it's almost impossible to re-enter the course at the exact same spot, the re-entry point should be relatively close, not 15 seconds down the track.

No one's trying to crucify J-Mart here. He's a well-liked rider and good ambassador for MX. It's simply the inconsistent nature by which the powers-that-be administrate the rules of the sport.
kiwifan
Profile picture for user kiwifan
Posts
9485
Joined
10/31/2009
Location
CA US
kiwifan 7/24/2017 6:30pm
7/24/2017 6:30pm
kkawboy14 wrote:
You guys don't see that there is a difference between intentionally cutting the track and unintentionally? Yikes
LoudLove wrote:
Intent should not play a role as to the base penalty for the infraction. To reference DC's analogy above, if a pitcher hits a batter, either...
Intent should not play a role as to the base penalty for the infraction. To reference DC's analogy above, if a pitcher hits a batter, either intentionally or by accident, the penalty is the same: the batter takes a base. The umpire has the discretion to implement further action (i.e. ejection), but the baseline penalty remains the same.

It was to Jeremy's advantage to re-enter on the downhill section, as he avoided the obstacle that caused the initial incident. There is little doubt that his subsequent tip-over quelled the need for a protest, but that should not play a role in implementing the penalty.

And while it's almost impossible to re-enter the course at the exact same spot, the re-entry point should be relatively close, not 15 seconds down the track.

No one's trying to crucify J-Mart here. He's a well-liked rider and good ambassador for MX. It's simply the inconsistent nature by which the powers-that-be administrate the rules of the sport.
he did not avoid the obstacle that caused the initial incident ... if he avoided it he would of not gone off the track
swtwtwtw
Profile picture for user swtwtwtw
Posts
1287
Joined
4/16/2008
Location
Apple Valley, CA US
swtwtwtw 7/24/2017 6:37pm
7/24/2017 6:37pm
This opens up a race strategy of purposefully going off track.
kkawboy14
Profile picture for user kkawboy14
Posts
11494
Joined
6/5/2015
Location
TX US
kkawboy14 7/24/2017 6:38pm
7/24/2017 6:38pm
kkawboy14 wrote:
You guys don't see that there is a difference between intentionally cutting the track and unintentionally? Yikes
LoudLove wrote:
Intent should not play a role as to the base penalty for the infraction. To reference DC's analogy above, if a pitcher hits a batter, either...
Intent should not play a role as to the base penalty for the infraction. To reference DC's analogy above, if a pitcher hits a batter, either intentionally or by accident, the penalty is the same: the batter takes a base. The umpire has the discretion to implement further action (i.e. ejection), but the baseline penalty remains the same.

It was to Jeremy's advantage to re-enter on the downhill section, as he avoided the obstacle that caused the initial incident. There is little doubt that his subsequent tip-over quelled the need for a protest, but that should not play a role in implementing the penalty.

And while it's almost impossible to re-enter the course at the exact same spot, the re-entry point should be relatively close, not 15 seconds down the track.

No one's trying to crucify J-Mart here. He's a well-liked rider and good ambassador for MX. It's simply the inconsistent nature by which the powers-that-be administrate the rules of the sport.
No the penalty for the pitcher is ejection for the intentional and staying in for the unintentional
zookrider62!
Profile picture for user zookrider62!
Posts
5920
Joined
12/22/2008
Location
Plano, TX US
Fantasy
719th
zookrider62! 7/24/2017 6:40pm
7/24/2017 6:40pm
kkawboy14 wrote:
You guys don't see that there is a difference between intentionally cutting the track and unintentionally? Yikes
Makes no difference. You cut the track either intentionally or by a mistake, it should affect your race.

Currently the "advantage gained" is that your race was not impacted, when it should have been.
mattyhamz2
Profile picture for user mattyhamz2
Posts
10866
Joined
7/6/2015
Location
So Cal, CA US
Fantasy
767th
mattyhamz2 7/24/2017 6:41pm
7/24/2017 6:41pm
My opinion, I don't have a huge issue where he got back on the track, but I have a big issue with his decision on when to get back on the track. He should have lost 3 or more positions, but instead got right back in where he was before the mistake. That's why the biggest reason he should have a penalty.
zookrider62!
Profile picture for user zookrider62!
Posts
5920
Joined
12/22/2008
Location
Plano, TX US
Fantasy
719th
zookrider62! 7/24/2017 6:42pm
7/24/2017 6:42pm
swtwtwtw wrote:
This opens up a race strategy of purposefully going off track.
Ive always wondered why Alessi hasnt just rode around the whoops, as long as he gets a little squirrely before them, and does not pass anyone, it should be fair game
500guy
Profile picture for user 500guy
Posts
12478
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
AZ US
500guy 7/24/2017 6:44pm
7/24/2017 6:44pm
swtwtwtw wrote:
This opens up a race strategy of purposefully going off track.
zookrider62! wrote:
Ive always wondered why Alessi hasnt just rode around the whoops, as long as he gets a little squirrely before them, and does not pass anyone...
Ive always wondered why Alessi hasnt just rode around the whoops, as long as he gets a little squirrely before them, and does not pass anyone, it should be fair game
I guess I would just pick a spot cut over, take a 5-10 second break while everyone else continues to race and jump right back in where I was.

That was a blatant track cut and should be penalized, intentional or not.
LoudLove
Profile picture for user LoudLove
Posts
1741
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
US
LoudLove 7/24/2017 6:46pm
7/24/2017 6:46pm
kkawboy14 wrote:
No the penalty for the pitcher is ejection for the intentional and staying in for the unintentional
The penalty is the hit batter automatically moves to first base, and that is not at the umpire's discretion. If a batter is hit, he takes a base, intentional or not.

Ejection is a separate matter, and does involve intent.
kzizok
Profile picture for user kzizok
Posts
8393
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
AS US
Fantasy
2034th
kzizok 7/24/2017 7:52pm
7/24/2017 7:52pm Edited Date/Time 7/24/2017 7:54pm
The heart of the problem is that ambiguous rules yield ambiguous infraction interpretations. You could argue either side of an interpretation and be right. Therefore, the specific rule doesnt exist (and becomes a suggestion) as there is no logical, objective way to define it or define it's violations.
dkg
Profile picture for user dkg
Posts
1863
Joined
9/12/2010
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA US
dkg 7/24/2017 8:21pm
7/24/2017 8:21pm Edited Date/Time 7/24/2017 8:28pm
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the rider and other race participants? Contrary to some, the rule doesn't seem to be ambiguous. Rather the point of re-entry is dictated by common sense and safety. They investigated and ruled. Seemed to me to be the correct ruling under all the circumstances. Simply because a rule and its application out of necessity interjects an element of evaluation doesn't make the rule or process flawed.

Pit Row

See All »
zookrider62!
Profile picture for user zookrider62!
Posts
5920
Joined
12/22/2008
Location
Plano, TX US
Fantasy
719th
zookrider62! 7/24/2017 8:28pm
7/24/2017 8:28pm
dkg wrote:
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the...
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the rider and other race participants? Contrary to some, the rule doesn't seem to be ambiguous. Rather the point of re-entry is dictated by common sense and safety. They investigated and ruled. Seemed to me to be the correct ruling under all the circumstances. Simply because a rule and its application out of necessity interjects an element of evaluation doesn't make the rule or process flawed.
So cutting the track as long as it is safe is okay?
MX_Andrew83
Profile picture for user MX_Andrew83
Posts
747
Joined
10/6/2010
Location
Morehead city, NC US
MX_Andrew83 7/24/2017 8:33pm
7/24/2017 8:33pm
I heard as a penalty he is being forced to pit out of a pop up tent behind the Geico rig for two races.
Flip109
Profile picture for user Flip109
Posts
3460
Joined
6/15/2007
Location
TX US
Flip109 7/24/2017 8:41pm
7/24/2017 8:41pm
Glad he didn't get a penalty. Fun to watch everyone bitch about it LaughingTongue
kiwifan
Profile picture for user kiwifan
Posts
9485
Joined
10/31/2009
Location
CA US
kiwifan 7/24/2017 8:41pm
7/24/2017 8:41pm
dkg wrote:
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the...
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the rider and other race participants? Contrary to some, the rule doesn't seem to be ambiguous. Rather the point of re-entry is dictated by common sense and safety. They investigated and ruled. Seemed to me to be the correct ruling under all the circumstances. Simply because a rule and its application out of necessity interjects an element of evaluation doesn't make the rule or process flawed.
zookrider62! wrote:
So cutting the track as long as it is safe is okay?
did you even read the post from dkg before posting your response? you guys need to move away from the 'cutting the track' mentality, good thing you arent the referee as you clearly cannot see common sense
Dan-The-Man 7/24/2017 9:21pm
7/24/2017 9:21pm
dkg wrote:
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the...
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the rider and other race participants? Contrary to some, the rule doesn't seem to be ambiguous. Rather the point of re-entry is dictated by common sense and safety. They investigated and ruled. Seemed to me to be the correct ruling under all the circumstances. Simply because a rule and its application out of necessity interjects an element of evaluation doesn't make the rule or process flawed.
zookrider62! wrote:
So cutting the track as long as it is safe is okay?
kiwifan wrote:
did you even read the post from dkg before posting your response? you guys need to move away from the 'cutting the track' mentality, good thing...
did you even read the post from dkg before posting your response? you guys need to move away from the 'cutting the track' mentality, good thing you arent the referee as you clearly cannot see common sense
Atleast a few people have the ability to understand. Common sense isn't all that common anymore.
Hut
Profile picture for user Hut
Posts
10286
Joined
4/27/2010
Location
WA US
Hut 7/24/2017 9:27pm
7/24/2017 9:27pm
swtwtwtw wrote:
This opens up a race strategy of purposefully going off track.
"rest stop"
Dirty Points 7/24/2017 9:28pm
7/24/2017 9:28pm Edited Date/Time 7/24/2017 9:41pm
dkg wrote:
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the...
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the rider and other race participants? Contrary to some, the rule doesn't seem to be ambiguous. Rather the point of re-entry is dictated by common sense and safety. They investigated and ruled. Seemed to me to be the correct ruling under all the circumstances. Simply because a rule and its application out of necessity interjects an element of evaluation doesn't make the rule or process flawed.
The reason you are a little confused is simple: there appears to be no rules as far as competition is concerned -- JMart and any other rider can exit the track and re-enter wherever they see fit, provided they don't gain a spot, and apparently coming up with an applicable rule and/or enforcing it would be tough.

Honestly, given those rules, I don't see any reason to race any of the track, other than the part they wave the checkered flag at.
dkg
Profile picture for user dkg
Posts
1863
Joined
9/12/2010
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA US
dkg 7/24/2017 9:30pm
7/24/2017 9:30pm
dkg wrote:
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the...
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the rider and other race participants? Contrary to some, the rule doesn't seem to be ambiguous. Rather the point of re-entry is dictated by common sense and safety. They investigated and ruled. Seemed to me to be the correct ruling under all the circumstances. Simply because a rule and its application out of necessity interjects an element of evaluation doesn't make the rule or process flawed.
zookrider62! wrote:
So cutting the track as long as it is safe is okay?
No, point of re-entry has to be evaluated taking into consideration safety. Rider should re-enter at a safe point closest to that of exit.
Black Diesel Bomber 7/24/2017 9:34pm
7/24/2017 9:34pm
Jeremy caught this out of the corner of his eye in the infield and rode over to investigate because he saw his name on the back of her jersey. No penalty. End of thread...




OW38B
Profile picture for user OW38B
Posts
3184
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Coto de Caza, CA US
Fantasy
181st
OW38B 7/24/2017 9:59pm
7/24/2017 9:59pm Edited Date/Time 7/24/2017 10:03pm
dkg wrote:
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the...
Little confused here. Is the point being argued that a rider must re-enter at the closest point of exit without regard to safety of both the rider and other race participants? Contrary to some, the rule doesn't seem to be ambiguous. Rather the point of re-entry is dictated by common sense and safety. They investigated and ruled. Seemed to me to be the correct ruling under all the circumstances. Simply because a rule and its application out of necessity interjects an element of evaluation doesn't make the rule or process flawed.
zookrider62! wrote:
So cutting the track as long as it is safe is okay?
kiwifan wrote:
did you even read the post from dkg before posting your response? you guys need to move away from the 'cutting the track' mentality, good thing...
did you even read the post from dkg before posting your response? you guys need to move away from the 'cutting the track' mentality, good thing you arent the referee as you clearly cannot see common sense
"you guys need to move away from the 'cutting the track' mentality"


You did see the part where JMart "cut" 12 to 15 seconds of the track off that lap correct?

The only leg he has to stand on is that he waited 5 or so seconds to let other riders bye....
JC21
Profile picture for user JC21
Posts
41
Joined
6/29/2017
Location
AU
JC21 7/24/2017 10:01pm
7/24/2017 10:01pm

Losing a bunch of spots, kicking the bike over a few times etc. is a neutral outcome when it comes to crashing/going off track. Not losing anything is actually a positive in RELATIVE terms. Maybe that causes the confusion
VRR7
Profile picture for user VRR7
Posts
798
Joined
6/1/2011
Location
ZA
VRR7 7/24/2017 10:35pm
7/24/2017 10:35pm
This same issue is relevant to all forms of motorsport. The current rules applied are consistent with the International ruling body of all forms of motorsport up to F1 and it is often the case more in road racing where a rider messes up take the run off road and gains a position and has to give the place back so he does not get an advantage IE Be in the same running position as JM did ! The argument they made a mistake missed braking marker is not relevant. No penalty is awarded chips fall where they fall. Its a mature level headed ruling and avoids over policing and less is more for the sake of the race and racing is the actual sport and winner ! Ride through and penalty and sit in the corner and and and traffic cops and more fines and just makes racing worse ! Not better.

The hot topic at the moment and most laws are for safety which strongly supports JM (The safe way in which he acted !) Is should Road Racer be allowed to continue racing after a crash ? Often times they damage the bike and then who knows if it is safe or not ( brakes clutch oil on the track etc - All potentially life threatening to many)? So a more NB topic should be - Should Osborne and Tomac have been black flagged or not ? The current ruling is no but it is under big scrutiny ! Like Grant said what if ZO 's bike locked up on a critical jump ??? Its dangerous ZO riding around a race track with big jumps on it with a bike with no water in it about to seize any moment is a bigger safety concern than what happened to JM - Priorities priorities ? Safety is a large factor for laws in motor sport .. how come are priorities so skewed ? JM acted safely and is the villain ZO did not and is the hero ? Inside out back to front ... Double backflip the finish line is hero move I understand but will actually get a penalty ( Guess why ? )

Post a reply to: What will Jeremy Martin's penalty be?