WSBK » Laverty critical of red flag ruling

Eugene Laverty slams the new-for-2012 red flag ruling following the confusion that occurred following the curtailed Silverstone race.

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest


September 06, 2012 10:52 AM

At the risk of seeming to confirm our vows i agree mate. God knows who thought it would be a good idea to change a rule that was working quite well in the first place.
Additionally, we were all confused at Silverstone as to who got what position and that was mainly down to this silly rule....and how the F*** Smrz got classified after falling off 2 laps earlier is beyond me

Sick Cylinder - Unregistered

September 06, 2012 11:06 AM

Agree with Nick and Cubikrube.

I presume the organisers of WSBK have not been watching racing for as long as I have! So a short history lesson for them!

The rule that only riders who have not fallen from their machines can be classified as race finishers was introduced for safety reasons following a series of incidents where riders who had fallen deliberately lay on the track in order to get races stopped. I am pretty sure that the last time I saw this happen was in a World Supersport race at Brands Hatch when Fabien Foret (who used to look behind him more than he looked in front)fell while looking behind then lay on the track, despite being uninjured in order to force a re-start / race stoppage.

I don't understand why the organisers would change from a safe and fair system to a new system which is clearly unsafe and could as Laverty has suggested lead to riders feigning injury and remaining on track to force a race stoppage.

The simple and previously effective rule is that if you


September 06, 2012 1:10 PM

It is virtually impossible to create a rule which takes care of all the "what-ifs". However, classifying a rider who fell 2 laps previously is clearly an aspect which needs very urgent revision.
If a race has to be stopped, the count-back should be to when the leading rider last crossed the finish line, not when the rider in last place crossed the line, which I believe may have been the deciding factor in this case.
Or did I mis-hear the report ?

Me - Unregistered

September 06, 2012 1:39 PM

Its better to invent a new flag for wet condicions when they get to a point that is better to stop.. This new flag will means that the riders have only one more lap to make and that the results will be ready after every rider cross the finish line on that final special red flag lap.. This way no more bullsht!!


September 06, 2012 1:59 PM


BRING BACK THE 2-BIKE RULE!!! Look how much controversy and time and confusion could've been spared this year by the guys having a bike in the garage with a wet setup? And do people REALLY think the 1-bike rule saves ANY cash?

As we've seen by Checa crashing badly this year and having a completely rebuilt bike by race 2, THEY ARE TAKING A SECOND BIKE ANYWAY, just keeping it in pieces... This is saving no money, hence failing at it's original task!!! All it is doing is giving riders like Sykes and Guintoli great chances to miss points. And making tracks like Monza, usually one of the best rounds, a shambles and a waste of time.

Alan - Unregistered

September 06, 2012 3:27 PM

I called this race a fix straight after it had finished, and it is still an issue for Laverty, he is right to be still pis*ed off about this.

Somebody went a long way out of their way to stop him finishing on the podium, they broke a rule that is in place of every professional motorsport in the world.

This is the same situation as the 2002 brazilian f1 race were Giancarlo Fisichella won when it was red flagged, the computer said he had won but charlie whiting overruled it, a week after the race they had to give the win to Giancarlo as they realised they were wrong, why has the wsb guys not fixed their "error" yet?

Page 1 of 3
1 2 3  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2015 Crash Media Group | Built by Accelerate Agency

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.