The SAINT Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Not really similar at all but I'm bored in work so i'll bite!!! The clash between Richard & Jason was an unfortunate one! RL obviously never meant to knock the chain off. It is the epitome of a racing incident. It is difficult to call. no one came off and the race wasn't stopped. but it ended garritys' race when he was in front of lawson (even tho it was a pure racing incident and completely unavoidable.. just to emphasise the point) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyretrax Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 but it ended garritys' race when he was in front of lawson (even tho it was a pure racing incident and completely unavoidable.. just to emphasise the point) Don't think there was much in it as to who was in front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 It doesn't matter who's in front. If you put another rider out of a race you should be excluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyretrax Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 It doesn't matter who's in front. If you put another rider out of a race you should be excluded. Maybe Garrity was trying to knock off Rich's footrest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagy1 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 It doesn't matter who's in front. If you put another rider out of a race you should be excluded. The phrase "excluded as being the cause of the stoppage" comes in to play. If there is no stoppage...................... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SAINT Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 The phrase "excluded as being the cause of the stoppage" comes in to play. If there is no stoppage...................... like a faulty/illegal/missing silencer/dirt-deflector exclusion you mean ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagy1 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 like a faulty/illegal/missing silencer/dirt-deflector exclusion you mean ???? This is in the context of a racing incident. The machine examiner is responsible for faulty or illegal parts of equipment or machinery & the referee must see if each rider has a dirt deflector on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millersfan444 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 The phrase "excluded as being the cause of the stoppage" comes in to play. If there is no stoppage...................... There was a stoppage though, to Garrity, not to the race, caused by Lawson unintentionally picking up grip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 The phrase "excluded as being the cause of the stoppage" comes in to play. If there is no stoppage...................... If the referee thinks someone has done something bad he stops the race - then you have a stoppage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagy1 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 If the referee thinks someone has done something bad he stops the race - then you have a stoppage So in this instance Richard was a well behaved boy so the race continued and he didn't need to go on the naughty step!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 So in this instance Richard was a well behaved boy so the race continued and he didn't need to go on the naughty step!! or the ref missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SAINT Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 i was just trying to point out that you don't have to have a 'stoppage' to have an exclusion (in answer to your earlier point) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 i was just trying to point out that you don't have to have a 'stoppage' to have an exclusion (in answer to your earlier point) Quite agree. A front rider could lock up in front, and a following rider could shut off and be 'impeded'. Front rider exclusion for interference. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Quite agree. A front rider could lock up in front, and a following rider could shut off and be 'impeded'. Front rider exclusion for interference. Not in the rulebook Mick Bates uses!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.