Canadian Grand Prix - Great Race Ruined by Stewards
#166
Rennlist Member
I think PHT has explained the steward's decision very well. I have a better feel of WHY they made their decision although I really don't like it.
That being said, I feel like back in the 'good old days' of F1 this incident would have been viewed as two champions fighting it out, one makes a mistake and the other is unable to capitalize on it. They continue to fight and make a great highlight reel. Of course these days it's almost impossible to pass.
That being said, I feel like back in the 'good old days' of F1 this incident would have been viewed as two champions fighting it out, one makes a mistake and the other is unable to capitalize on it. They continue to fight and make a great highlight reel. Of course these days it's almost impossible to pass.
#167
Rennlist Member
This kind of reminds me of a football game where the refs are calling penalties every other play. It totally ruins the game, and make it unwatchable. They may be right with the calls, but this type of over-officiating ruins the sport.
This incident may have been correctly officiated, but it wasn't bad enough to warrant any action. Just let them race for crying out loud
This incident may have been correctly officiated, but it wasn't bad enough to warrant any action. Just let them race for crying out loud
#168
The Penguin King
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
So if Ham doesn’t back out, puts Vet in the wall, and continues does Ham get a penalty? It would be avoidable contact. Serious question.
#169
#170
Rennlist Member
#171
Rennlist Member
#172
Originally Posted by Difool
I went to catch up on the race and .... “yay” the first half of the recording is filled with a college baseball game. Thanks ESPN!
#173
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Connecticut Valley Region
Posts: 14,443
Received 3,218 Likes
on
1,571 Posts
I think this thread should automatically expire at the end of free practice three of the French GP.
#174
#175
The Penguin King
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
#176
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 12,381
Received 3,726 Likes
on
2,165 Posts
Because these situations often aren't clear cut, instead requiring considerable analysis and judgment, maybe we should treat the steward's decisions as another interesting dimension of the sport, rather than something to be upset about when we don't agree with or like those decisions.
We like to say just let the racers race, which gives the racing a more personal emphasis, but the 'race' is really a system involving the drivers, cars, engineers, mechanics, trainers, the rest of the team members, corner workers, track and weather conditions, and yes, the rules and stewards. You could say that each team is a system competing against other similar systems in the context of a broader system, though that's a fairly abstract and perhaps boring way to look at it.
All of the above is kind of why I kind of like the relative clarity and purity of singles tennis. By far, the biggest determinant of the outcome is the two players and their performance, with other factors being much more secondary. And interestingly, more emphasis is placed on the influence of coaches in tennis as compared to racing, which maybe suggests that the mental aspects make a bigger difference in tennis than racing.
#177
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
A "straw man fallacy", to add to the earlier "bandwagon fallacy".
No one here Few here are able to have a dispassionate discussion about actual rules and actual facts. Sigh.
The Race Director can suggest to the team that they give a position back, but does not have the authority to order it. If the team does not give it back, the Race Director will refer it to the Stewards, who will consider the facts and the rules, and come to a decision. During a race, this happens in real time. It generates a flurry of activity.
Currently, there is a lot of "WWCD?" (What would Charlie do ?) discussion. That's not fair to the Michael - the current guy in the hot seat - as it was the Ferrari team & driver that held responsibility for all of this.
No penalty is casually considered.
Everybody knows what's at stake.
Stewards are good with being correct, rather than being popular.
The Race Director can suggest to the team that they give a position back, but does not have the authority to order it. If the team does not give it back, the Race Director will refer it to the Stewards, who will consider the facts and the rules, and come to a decision. During a race, this happens in real time. It generates a flurry of activity.
Currently, there is a lot of "WWCD?" (What would Charlie do ?) discussion. That's not fair to the Michael - the current guy in the hot seat - as it was the Ferrari team & driver that held responsibility for all of this.
No penalty is casually considered.
Everybody knows what's at stake.
Stewards are good with being correct, rather than being popular.
You may give "Michael" the pass because he's not Charlie Whiting, but there is a bigger picture here on what is deemed fair and balanced and what is good for F1. KNOW WHO YOUR AUDIENCE IS AND WHY THEY ARE TUNING IN!! WE DO NOT WANT TO WATCH A GREAT RACE DESTROYED AND THEN HEAR LAWYER SPEAK ON WHY IT IS WHAT IT IS. F1 in in enough trouble are far was watchability as it is. You may be a rules expert, but 99% of the time whatever the stewards deal out is never challenged because it's deemed "fair". This time they over penalized -- just admit it. You can refer to the rules are rules garbage all you want but the BOLD part up in your post CLEARLY INDICATES THERE WAS ANOTHER OPTION/SOLUTION. Do not pee in the wind and tell me it's raining and refer to the rules are your crutch when all but 1% of the fans, former drivers etc. see it as grossly over penalized.
You can watch the next race and then tell me if it was good or not, but I'm not wasting my time on F1 any longer.
#178
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 12,381
Received 3,726 Likes
on
2,165 Posts
The bold part ^^ is what would have been the more prudent thing to do. The fact that we are still talking about this 2 weeks later is proof that the call by the stewards was over the top harsh and effectively killed the entire race. I don't know anyone on the no penalty side who could effectively argue that giving the position to LH and then VET going after him for the balance of the race would be deemed unfair as compared to the 5 sec. time penalty. If "suggested" to give back the position was not strong enough and Ferrari disobeyed, then that's on them if a penalty was imposed.
You may give "Michael" the pass because he's not Charlie Whiting, but there is a bigger picture here on what is deemed fair and balanced and what is good for F1. KNOW WHO YOUR AUDIENCE IS AND WHY THEY ARE TUNING IN!! WE DO NOT WANT TO WATCH A GREAT RACE DESTROYED AND THEN HEAR LAWYER SPEAK ON WHY IT IS WHAT IT IS. F1 in in enough trouble are far was watchability as it is. You may be a rules expert, but 99% of the time whatever the stewards deal out is never challenged because it's deemed "fair". This time they over penalized -- just admit it. You can refer to the rules are rules garbage all you want but the BOLD part up in your post CLEARLY INDICATES THERE WAS ANOTHER OPTION/SOLUTION. Do not pee in the wind and tell me it's raining and refer to the rules are your crutch when all but 1% of the fans, former drivers etc. see it as grossly over penalized.
You can watch the next race and then tell me if it was good or not, but I'm not wasting my time on F1 any longer.
You may give "Michael" the pass because he's not Charlie Whiting, but there is a bigger picture here on what is deemed fair and balanced and what is good for F1. KNOW WHO YOUR AUDIENCE IS AND WHY THEY ARE TUNING IN!! WE DO NOT WANT TO WATCH A GREAT RACE DESTROYED AND THEN HEAR LAWYER SPEAK ON WHY IT IS WHAT IT IS. F1 in in enough trouble are far was watchability as it is. You may be a rules expert, but 99% of the time whatever the stewards deal out is never challenged because it's deemed "fair". This time they over penalized -- just admit it. You can refer to the rules are rules garbage all you want but the BOLD part up in your post CLEARLY INDICATES THERE WAS ANOTHER OPTION/SOLUTION. Do not pee in the wind and tell me it's raining and refer to the rules are your crutch when all but 1% of the fans, former drivers etc. see it as grossly over penalized.
You can watch the next race and then tell me if it was good or not, but I'm not wasting my time on F1 any longer.
#179
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Could it be that F1 can be a bit boring because the drivers are very close in ability, the cars are a bigger factor, and Merc has been somewhat dominant for years, so outcomes are fairly predictable? It might be more interesting if Lewis had a team mate who was more of a threat to him (Seb, Alonso, mad Max, etc.).
EDIT: I also see Ricciardo and Verstappen as top tier as they consistently punch above their weight with inferior cars. Having one of them as LH's teammate would be entertaining, but Mercedes isn't in the business to entertain but rather win both championships without internal strife.
Last edited by multi21; 06-17-2019 at 12:01 PM.
#180
Banned
The bold part ^^ is what would have been the more prudent thing to do. The fact that we are still talking about this 2 weeks later is proof that the call by the stewards was over the top harsh and effectively killed the entire race. I don't know anyone on the no penalty side who could effectively argue that giving the position to LH and then VET going after him for the balance of the race would be deemed unfair as compared to the 5 sec. time penalty. If "suggested" to give back the position was not strong enough and Ferrari disobeyed, then that's on them if a penalty was imposed.
So in this context, it could be said that the race officials performed sub-optimally and could have made a better decision. Easy for us to say after having days to debate and review the incident -- not just minutes to make a decision. Maybe they opted for the 5sec penalty (vs giving up P1) exactly because they were certain of VET's intent and choice to impede? If they were convinced he had no choice maybe they would have gone with the P1 flip option? Just hypothesizing here.
Finally, even with the 5sec penalty, the race was VET's to lose. At one point he was 3.5sec ahead of HAM and instead of crying like a little girl on the radio, he could have put on his big boy pants, focus, push, and go for the extra 1.5sec to victory, which would have also made for a fun and exciting finish. Theoretically, HAM was only 1.5sec "ahead" and VET didn't even have to pass him to take his P1.
Last edited by hf1; 06-17-2019 at 12:25 PM.