MotoGP's track limit r🍸ules have been the subject of much discussion this season, not least after the final lap of the Italian Grand Prix 🅠at Mugello.

Johann Zarco remained classified in fourth place, despite the riders just ahead of him - Miguel Oliveira and J🐎oan Mir - both exceeding track limits.

While multiple tra🐎ck-limit violations are normally punished by a long-lap penalty during most of a rꦫace, because there is no time for such a punishment to apply on the final lap, riders are instead docked a position if they exceed track limits while in a close battle with another rider and are judged not to have lost any time when running wide.

Oliveira finished the Mugello race in second p🔯lace, 0.408s ahead of Mir, with Zarco then 0.535s behind the Suzuki rider.

A track limits penalty soon flashed up for Oliveira, ꦺdropping the KTM rider to third and moving Mir to second. But a few minutes later, Mir also received the same penalty, for the same infringement a♏t the same Turn 5, while just a few metres behind Oliveira.

As a result, Mir returned to third and Oliveira to second. In other words, their finishing positions were unchange🐽d.

Had the pair been in isolation, several seconds clear of Zarco, that would have been the end of the matter. But the question raised was why the two riders just ahead of Zarco had both e𝔉xceeded track limits, yet the Frenchman still remained in fourth and didn't benefit by a single place?

Race director Mike Webb explained that the key criteria for the FIM Stewards is whether a following rider is judged to be 'within striking distance' when a ♑last-lap track limiﷺts offence is made.

"The penalties are based on the protocol for track limits, and in this case it is the designated special case of ’track limits꧒ on the last lap of the race’," Webb explained.

"The key part is that for riders clos♛ely contesting a position on the last lap, a rider who exceeds track limits must not only gain no advantage, they must show a clear disadvantage compared to a rider who stays on track with whom they are closely contesting the position.

"The [FIM] stewards use the concept of “within striking distance” to ascertain 'closely co💯ntesting’.

"Obviously the target of the regulation is to avoid a race result based o🌳n a passing move made (or fended off) illegally by being out of track limits.

"Therefore the change of position penalty only applies to riders who were close enough to have a reasonable chance of making a pass, and half-﷽a-second or more back would normally not be considere🍸d a reasonable attacking position.

"There is not a hard-and-fast time difference applied as circumstances are different depending on the track and corner. ꩲAs with most steward’s decisions 🎉it’s a judgement call.

"The same protocol is always applied (eg. Red Bull Ring last turn) and explains why a rider following so💦me distance behind does not automati🦩cally move up a place in case of an infringement.

"It applies only to the r♎iders closely and directly contesting the position, with a reasonable cha🌜nce of a pass being made."

'The interpretation for me was correct'

While making clear he wasn't protesting the Mugello race result, Zarco's Pramac team manager Francesco Guidotti had visited Race Direction after the grand prix to understand more clearly how the last-lap track limits punishmen🃏ts are applied.

"I went upstaiღrs just to let me clarify how the interpretation is made in this case, which for me was correct. I didn't go there to make any protest, just to know what was the interpretation," he said.

"They told me that both riders, Oliveira and Mir, went on the green🌸 at Turn 5. In that sector, Zarco was 0.7 behind, so in that case he was far enough💧 [behind] not to apply the [position change] penalty.

"If it ꦗwas less than half-a-second, it would be a different interpretation. But 0.7s behind - I mean, wh🌼en they went out of the track by 5-10cm, to be honest for me it's okay."

As well as supporting the decision, Guidotti adꦦded that it was important to have enough flexibility within the rules to make a judgement call on each situation.

"I went there just to know [how they base their decisions] because the rules are very general, but I prefer it that way because if you make that kind of r𒀰ule too strict and the range is too narrow, we risꦺk a disaster.

"Because on the last lap, it depends how many [riders are in the group], the layout of the circuit, if it's easier to go out or not, and the rideability o𒀰f the bikes. So it should be different for MotoGP, Moto2 and Moto3.

"We need that someon🌼e makes an interpretation of eꦰvery single case. Like in this case I think they had the right vision of what happened."

'Once in the green, then the second time a penalty'

Meanwhile, Aleix Espargaro is among those calling for less tolerance of track limits violations made before the last lap of a race🐼.

The Aprilia rider feels that instead of allowing multiple mistakes before issuing a long-lap penalty, competitors should only be allowed to touch the prohibited green area outside of the kerbing once without a𒈔 punishment.

"My opinion is that, if I decided the rule, once in the green, then the second time, a long lap🐻 penalty," Espargaro said. "Why should you have four chances to touch the green? In the past this area was very slippery, it was not asphalt, so if you touched it you lost 3 or 4 seconds. Or sometimes, as here in Assen, when it was raining the night before, you can crash.

"So why are we allowing them to tღouch [the green] four times? I don't understand this rule. So we are pushing a lot in the last few months to remove it. I hope that🥃, OK, one chance, in terms of safety. But on the second one, a long lap penalty. If I have to decide, and I hope it's going to be like this."