Let's talk MotoGP: Franco Morbidelli may complain, but race management did its job

It's no joke: Franco Morbidelli was at the center of yet another controversy at the MotoGP Dutch Grand Prix. The Italian got into a collision with his teammate, Fabio Di Giannantonio, and cut the final chicane while trying to imitate his mentor, Valentino Rossi. But this time, it didn't work. I've been wanting to write an article about race direction and its decisions since the start of the season, so here's the perfect opportunity.

 

One more pan

 

The Morbidelli case will allow me to discuss the evolution of sanctions imposed by sports commissioners, This is just one example. But, since it was clearly mentioned in the title, let's expand on it a bit. To summarize, Fabio Di Giannantonio, faster, wanted to attempt an overtake in the final chicane, always subject to controversy. According to my analysis, it's pretty clear: he already seems well engaged by the time Morbidelli closes in on him. It's very similar to the finish of the 2015 Dutch GP, of course, where Valentino Rossi did the same after a perhaps more daring overtaking attempt by Marc Marquez. At the time, "The Doctor" kept the victory after going over the ledge, claiming he couldn't turn after the contact. He had it from experience, let's say.

 

 

The, Di Giannantonio was still less in disaster than Marc Marquez, and Morbidelli didn't hesitate to cut the chicane that was now asphalted. As a result, it seemed pretty clear to me that Franky had to immediately give up this position, which he would have lost if he had stayed on the track. But no, he continued, and was still overtaken, a little further on. He received a long lap for having maintained this advantage, which was not inconsistent. He was smoking at the finish, but, in my opinion, his case was quite indefensible, whether he likes it or not.

Morbidelli continues to be talked about for the wrong reasons, and, As I said just two weeks ago, his behavior completely masks his progress.This could well cost him dearly in the future, because it is an important selection criterion for a team.

 

Fair decisions?

 

Let us now return to this new panel of commissioners, which, as a reminder, has changed. Previously, it was Freddie Spencer who presided over this obscure assembly, which we, the spectators, never really see at work.. This is a negative point that I will mention in a few lines. "Fast Freddie", as good as he was on the track, was not really appreciated by the drivers. Johann Zarco, among others, criticized him a lot because of his behavior. I remember real scandals linked to his refereeing - his own, and that of his men of course -: remember the penalty imposed on Fabio Quartararo at Assen in 2022, where he fell and dragged Aleix Espargaro into his misfortune, who was forced to go through the gravel trap, but came out unscathed. "El Diablo", for having eliminated himself, received a long penalty to be served at the next Grand Prix. A real nonsense.

So, I'll end the suspense: I find it much better under the leadership of Simon Crafar, also a former Grand Prix driver. The New Zealander was previously a consultant for MotoGP.com, and I already found him excellent in his role. He always provided the correct explanation, in a very calm tone. I was immediately in favor of his appointment as director of the stewards' panel, because in my opinion, the main flaw of the "Spencer era" was communication, or rather, the lack of it. Sanctions rained down, but no one knew why, including the drivers. Now, everyone agrees – even Morbidelli – that Crafar listens, that you can talk there, exchange ideasThe proof is that after Mugello, he called Bagnaia and Marc Marquez into the race management team simply to understand their motivations during the battle of the first laps. Chapeau.

 

 

One can always criticize sanctions, but I find that they too are more justified, and above all, more coherent. Maintaining the same line in completely different situations is undoubtedly the most difficult task, and the Crafar panel is doing well. I also like that he doesn't focus on the outcome of a collision, but on the contact itself. A driver who brings down another driver shouldn't be penalized more because the victim is injured. It's the intent that should be punished; no one can predict, at the time of the attack, what will happen next.

I have a good example to illustrate these two points. In Italy, Franco Morbidelli was given a long penalty for colliding with Maverick Vinales. The latter fell, because he didn't have the space to pick up. Since there is no run-off at Mugello, there was nothing he could do about it. In Qatar, Alex Marquez received the same sanction for a similarly hasty move against Fabio Di Giannantonio, but, since the Italian had all the asphalt in the world to avoid the crash, he was able to recover. I honestly think that both incidents were of equal severity, even though one fell and the other didn't. Then again, you can criticize the severity – some think Crafar is too lax – but in terms of consistency, It seems perfectly fair to me.

Communication has also improved, and I wish Crafar, who excels in this area, would push even harder for total transparency. As a viewer, I would love to see him explain his decisions to us with diagrams, drawings, and simple images. Other disciplines are much more explicit, so why not set an example in the world of motorsports?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the matter, then, tell me in the comments!

 

 

Cover photo: Michelin Motorsport