Not to want to get you into hot waters but one of the blogs on here shared Marc’s onboard from the 2015 sepang kick incident and I’m a bit unsure how anyone could watch that and not consider it a deliberate kick? Really don’t want anyone to get mad because I’m no expert so maybe there’s something about Valentino’s movements that allows for the “accidental” kick option but if so, what is it? Because as a layman, watching it… I wish it were possible to show that video to Valentino and make him explain exactly how that kick was not on purpose…
I think it's genuinely ambiguous! this is what's interesting about it, right - if you look at the onboards and the helicopter shots there's a decent chance that depending on what you watch you'll end up with a pretty different view on it, and it's inarguable that from certain angles it looks incredibly like a kick. it's also inarguable that whether valentino kicked marc or not, he did deliberately attempt to run him wide, which you can see was intentional by how he looks behind him just before they make contact. it's still not clean riding whichever way you look at it, which is why he got the penalty
I'm going to defer to someone else's opinion here myself (you'll find I link back to this site a lot and broadly consider it trustworthy), from a bloke who does very much believe valentino was in the wrong that weekend. this is in the aftermath of the fim requesting that honda doesn't release data which would have 'proven' valentino kicked marc in an entirely futile attempt to make the controversy die down. the piece talks first about what data like this even involves, including this bit:
the main point here is that the data isn't going to tell you whether valentino kicked him or not, because that's not something you can actually read in data. I have another ask that's vaguely related to this sitting in my drafts, but it's always been one of the most interesting elements of all the controversy in late 2015 - both sides attempting to definitively prove the unprovable with a few numbers. let's quickly bring in what arguments both sides as well as race direction made in the immediate aftermath from the post-race piece by the same author:
that's valentino's explanation, right, marc's handlebar hit valentino's knee, which caused the leg movement as well as the crash. a little more from the immediate post-race write-up:
basically, the view here is that the two bikes make contact - and as a result of where marc hits valentino, valentino's foot is dislodged from the foot peg, catching marc's handlebars in the process. again, none of this actually exonerates valentino. whether there was a kick or no kick, you are NOT allowed to run another rider off-track! whether valentino literally wanted marc to crash or not, this was always going to be a possible consequence of his actions - which he would have known was the case! it is obviously worse to kick someone, partly because it just feels like a particularly egregious offence, but there is no version of this story where valentino comes out with a clean scorecard
as the 'post-honda promising to release conclusive evidence' piece goes on to say:
of course, all this is just one bloke's view. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that valentino did kick marc. but I also struggle to see how it's a clear cut case for the prosecution. again, however, it really is important to stress that valentino by his own admission was engaging in an extremely dubious move. the kick would be the cherry on the icing, if you will, but running another rider so wide that you are probably trying to force them to leave the track is generally not considered acceptable behaviour. the kick question is very much something everyone has to decide for themselves - or not! I still think it's the ambiguity that helps make the whole thing so interesting, that every single clash between the two of them that year still has so many unanswered questions. that both sides have their own unshakeable views of events - sometimes close to 'reality' and sometimes a little less so, sometimes reasonable and sometimes anything but. it's the subjectivity and the fallibility of the human capacity to understand events that we ourselves have experienced - it's this lack of knowability for both outsiders and insiders that makes it so endlessly fascinating and rewarding to analyse. even the two men themselves cannot completely understand what happened that day, what happened in those few seconds, and they never will. we're all in the dark, in the end
34 notes
·
View notes
Typing about the best wildlife scholar made me realise something -
We know Dheginsea's extremist isolationist and non-interventionist policies were motivated by his wish to stop the propagation of wars, or at least, not to create a situation where the entire continent would be engulfed in War, else Ashera would wake up and erase the population.
Which is what he ultimately believes happened - that's why we fight against him in FE10, because the plot is stupid and cannot have Yune tell him "hi! We were woken by Galdr, Ashera mistakingly believes the inverse!" before his ultimate defeat.
But thinking more about it -
The Three Heroes (tfw Lehran's not part of the gang) made a pact with the Goddesses : they had to ensure 1k years of peace else they would stone Humanity. If they wake up in 1k years and the world is in chaos, they would stone it. If not, then kumbaya.
If they wake up before those 1k years due to war, the world is stone. If they are awoken by Galdr, they should, uh, talk to each other to decide what to do.
To Dheginsea, the only person who could sing the Galdr of Release, Lehran, lost the power to do so when he lost his abilities as a Laguz : ergo, without any possibility to wake the Goddesses up with Galdr, the only way to avoid Ashera's judgment was to avoid wars for 1000 years, even if it means... well, ignoring people suffering and letting them die at your doorstep.
So, Dheginsea, if he revealed the truth about Lehran, would have started a war against Beorcs (there's no way Laguz who know the truth will accept the status quo that if they live too closely with Beorcs they die), and without Galdr : Ashera wakes up "with war" and stones everyone.
If he intervened like Lehran wanted, and had Goldoa stomp Begnion/Beorcs who enslaves Laguz? Ashera wakes up "with war" and stones everyone, since she can't be waken up with Galdr anymore.
Hell, if Dheginsea terminated Ashnard and Daein as he planned too after losing Rajaion and Almedha (what FE10 tells us... but can we seriously believe this when in FE9 he dgaf about the situation?), again we have the same situation : Ashera wakes up due to war and stones everyone.
The only reason why the cast "won" and Tellius isn't stoned anymore is because unbestknown to Lehran, Dheginsea and well, everyone in Tellius, Lehran's branded descendants (who conveniently weren't all wiped out!) can actually sing the Galdr of Release and release Yune, who can circumvent the "Ashera wakes up with war and stone everyone".
-> When Lehran lost his powers and couldn't act as an alarm anymore, the only way to "wake the goddesses before 1k years happen" is with war and their judgment would be to kill everyone.
So Dheginsea had to grit his teeth and accept every fucked up thing that happened in Tellius because Lehran - due to this world's crappy mechanics - cannot "wake up the Goddesses" earlier and ask them to withold their judgment : if there is a war they will kill everyone - they must endure for 1k years, else Tellius is doomed.
Tl;Dr : TFW "make love not war" backfired in Lehran's case, and completely fucked up the covenant they had with the goddesses and if Miccy chocked on a pretzel, Lehran's love for Altina (aka him losing his powers) would have led to Tellius being wiped out even without his own participation.
7 notes
·
View notes