Sam??

[Matski]

How much time do you give a player to check himself? If a player gets hit on the break does he stop to check himself.. or get to his barricade first before checking himself? It seems like option A gets you shot while you check yourself immediately,...and option B gets you 141'd. I'm guessing it'll all depend on how zealous the judges are from field to field.

No matter what happens, we will find a way to blame the French anyway, it's all good...

 

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Beaker
Kinda of like in F1 a back-marking car will get penalised for holding up a race leader, regarless of whether he could see it for spray or his mirrors had fallen off.

In MotoGp/ WSB /BsB two riders are neck and neck coming up to a bend both what have what they think is the best line and both are relativley unaware how close the other is........
Too close as it happens, one nudges the other and off they both go @140mph+ through the gravel.

The marshals then make a judgement as to who was @ fault in the end they can see that both had the right to take the lines they were taking and it's whats known as a 'racing incident'

The point is that the marshalls took a decision

 

[Beaker]

I agree,

But if one of those bikes was under a flag and should have given way i.e. he was not eligible to be in that place and affecting the race, the other bike would stand to benefit.

In your example both bikes have an equal right to be there, if you are playing with a hit (known or not), you don't have that right.

 

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Beaker

In your example both bikes have an equal right to be there, if you are playing with a hit (known or not), you don't have that right.

No the point is that the marshals made a decision and that's point i've been trying to make all along

 

[Ralph]

Originally posted by matski
How much time do you give a player to check himself?

if it's Dave Stewart......... loads He's quite a big chap

 

[Matski]

That's easy, you don't check Dave Stewart anyway, he never gets shot!

 

[Ralph]

Jasper

Originally posted by matski
Whatever rulebook is being used, you need good refs to enforce them with consistency. Your last example is just the age old situation of a ref not checking someone properly...you can't blame the rules for that.

Too true Matt but what if a ref checks the player misses the hit and then sees it after the player takes an oppo and moves to a new bunker. As it stands he has to 1-4-1 him if only to cover his own F*l< up.

 

[Ralph]

Originally posted by matski
That's easy, you don't check Dave Stewart anyway, he never gets shot!

 

[skullicious]

Everyone knows cats have nine lives....
*Meow*

 

[Beaker]

Originally posted by Ralph
No the point is that the marshals made a decision and that's point i've been trying to make all along

I know they made a decision, but one based on equal circumstances so a decision is required. What decision is required if a guy playing on has a hit? He is on the field, affecting play, and so this redresses the balance in favour of the other team. Whether he know about it or could see it or felt it is immaterial to the impact he had on the game.

Too true Matt but what if a ref checks the player misses the hit and then sees it after the player takes an oppo and moves to a new bunker. As it stands he has to 1-4-1 him if only to cover his own F*l< up.

That should be a 1-4-1 anyway, as that player wouldn't (and shouldn't) have been eliminated as he was shot by a "dead" player, so redress in a 1-4-1 is required at the very least. If a bike finishes a race and is found to have too light a frame or not enough fuel or whatever (I don't follow bikes as you can tell) the race can be stripped away as they were in breach of the rules. Just becase someone didn't notice at first doesn't change the rule.