Unraveling the Controversy: Inside the Stewards’ Decision on the Bastianini-Martin Clash at Misano

Simon Crafar's insights from the stewards leave lingering uncertainties

New angles surface in the Enea Bastianini versus Jorge Martin incident

Discussion surrounding the final lap incident involving Enea Bastianini and Jorge Martin during the MotoGP Emilia Romagna Grand Prix was reignited on Thursday in Indonesia.

Only four days after the contentious end to the second round at Misano, where Bastianini aggressively overtook Martin at Turn 4 on the last lap to win, the MotoGP teams have regrouped on the island of Lombok for the Indonesian Grand Prix.

However, discussions about the incident in Misano continue, as Bastianini and Martin were questioned about it during Thursday's press conference before the event.

Bastianini continues to believe his actions were justified, a sentiment echoed by the race officials who decided against penalizing him. Martin, on the other hand, remains unconvinced by the decision to not impose a penalty.

A point of contention has been the perceived failure of the FIM stewards panel, led by two-time 500cc world champion Freddie Spencer, to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident.

Former Grand Prix champion Simon Crafar, set to replace Spencer in the stewards room in 2025, moving away from his role with Dorna's broadcasting team, has recently provided new insights into the events that transpired last Sunday, revealing that an investigation took place.

"He confirmed on Thursday, before the initial motogp.com press conference, that the stewards had looked into the matter."

"They scrutinize every detail. I've dedicated some time to observing them during the past four Moto3 competitions and all the Moto2 events throughout the weekend, beginning to grasp their processes."

In Misano, there are approximately 160 cameras installed, with 50 exclusively allocated for their own use, allowing them to choose the placements.

"In addition to the international feed cameras (IPF) that are broadcasted on television, there are also circuit CCTV cameras utilized for monitoring track events and similar activities."

"Thus, the total is slightly below 160 cameras. From my observations up there, they scrutinize every detail, indicating that whenever there's the slightest disturbance, they look into it."

Every instance of a person being forced off the course is closely monitored. There's a specific team assigned solely to oversee track boundaries. The point I'm making is that the absence of an 'under investigation' notice on the television screen does not imply a lack of scrutiny.

Throughout the entire cooldown lap, they meticulously analyze the situation from various perspectives, promptly arriving at a conclusion.

"Their verdict differed from the opinion of roughly half the population, concluding that there was no penalty."

Crafar accurately points out that the responsibility for displaying TV tickers related to race direction messages doesn't fall to the stewards. Instead, it's the broadcast production team that takes care of this, provided they've received the necessary information to disseminate.

Last weekend, Gino Borsoi, the head of Pramac, disclosed that his team sought clarity from the stewards regarding their approach to a recent incident, while Martin mentioned he was unable to reach Spencer when he attempted to visit him.

"I made an effort, I approached the Race Direction, but they were unavailable when I got there. I attempted to meet them afterwards, yet they instructed me to have a discussion with them the next day," Martin explained to the Spanish press on Thursday at Mandalika.

"I made an effort, yet it was unsuccessful. My desire is to have a conversation with them, but not over the weekend or prior to it. Similarly, not before a practice session. Today (Thursday) seemed like the right time, but perhaps we'll manage to schedule it for another moment."

Remaining Queries

Although Crafar has shed new light on the matter, there are still unresolved inquiries that remain.

Why wasn't it announced from the beginning if an investigation was underway? It seems illogical to keep such information secret when a swift declaration from the stewards that no penalties would be applied could have conclusively halted this discussion by sending a clear 'no further action' notice to the global broadcast.

Other media sources have indicated that while the stewards reviewed the issue, they apparently didn't deem it significant enough to launch a full investigation. Considering this involved a race victory, such a decision seems unexpected.

At its core, the problem isn't about whether a penalty was warranted. That's subjective and can be debated, especially if it ends up significantly impacting the championship race in Valencia. What's crucial is the absence of clarity regarding how steward decisions are made and the guidelines they follow.

Following the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, Martin and the Pramac team openly declared their perception that Bastianini's actions were within the boundaries deemed acceptable by the race officials. Consequently, they argue there should be no penalties if they adhere to similar conduct during races. This stance is understandable, and it's expected that competitors will explore these boundaries, as is common in racing.

Many believe Bastianini deserved a penalty mainly due to him also veering off the track. Bastianini explained his action by stating he checked to see if Martin had taken a tumble. However, it's more plausible that he was checking to ensure Martin wasn't about to re-enter the race at high speed close to him.

During final lap confrontations, it's common for a rider who goes beyond the track boundaries to lose a position. This typically applies to areas marked with green paint indicating run-off zones. Areas that aren't marked with green are not considered to provide an unfair advantage if a rider goes beyond them. Bastianini's actions, under these circumstances, were acceptable.

Should the officials have deemed the incident at Misano unworthy of an in-depth review, does it mean a rider can now just avert their gaze from their intended path if they're aware they're going off track? Naturally, the officials could utilize data for their assessment if they see fit – yet, this hinges on their perceived need for it.

In our initial review of the event, we mentioned that the officials publish a daily summary of all reviewed incidents, along with a concise rationale. We highlighted an exemplary case illustrating how the officials manage situations efficiently without extensive scrutiny, while also providing their justification.

During the Spanish Grand Prix, Johann Zarco made contact with Pedro Acosta at Turn 5 during the initial lap, causing Acosta to lose his position to Zarco. However, Zarco managed to rectify his action in the subsequent sector, and as a result, he wasn't required to concede his position back to Acosta, which would have been the case had the incident escalated.

That was all that was necessary for the stewards to do on Sunday at Misano to resolve an issue as contentious as that final lap.

Four days have passed, and it has come to light that they investigated the incident. However, the rationale behind their decision remains unclear, as does the reason for their lack of communication about it.

At a minimum, the prospective steward Crafar, who is notably at ease when addressing complex topics about motorcycle racing on television, has shown that he is the ideal candidate to address and enhance the issue of transparency that the existing panel has allowed to persist for an extended period.

Explore Further

Sign up for our MotoGP Bulletin

Receive the newest updates, exclusive content, one-on-one conversations, and special offers from the racing circuit straight to your email.

For further details, please refer to our Privacy Policy.

Recent Updates

Additional Updates

Website Directory

Crash.Net

©1999-2024 Crash Media Group

Reproducing the entire content or portions thereof, including text, images, or drawings, in any manner is strictly prohibited.