When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
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.
It sounds like you're suggesting that F1 adopt a "professional wrestling" rules-set - "We're serious...but just kidding".
Those advocating for "No penalty !" seem think that calling ***** and strikes in professional racing is a positive sum game. It's not. It could be zero sum, or it could be negative sum. Let's imagine the wailing and moaning if nothing had been done here. It always occurs, but it usually dies down because it was the option "not chosen", the complaints are about imaginary outcomes.
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.
I have never claimed to be a rules expert. I am simply a currently-practicing FIA International Steward, working for two different racing series - one open-wheel, one closed-wheel. Our obligations are to understand the rules & regulations adopted by each series we're nominated to work with, and apply those rules when asked. We are chosen for these roles due to our experience and performance in the less-visible forms of motorsport. Our general mantra is "Don't be part of the story". In Canada, unfortunately, the story swept them up. They don't want to be in that spot, either...but they have a responsibility.
Admit what ? Your demand is silly.
Since you don't have time for F1 anymore, a bit of advice - don't sit too close to the ring...flying chairs and sweat and stuff.
Does anyone know for sure that the stewards didn't discuss the infraction with Ferrari prior to issuing the penalty? I've seen plenty of occasions when watching an IMSA, Indy, or even a NASCAR race where you team bosses pleading their cases to race officials before a penalty is handed down.
I am not sure what the beef is. The rules are the rules. Plus, watching the video CCA posted shows me that Vettel seemed to have control once he was back on the pavement and put his car exactly where he wanted it. Just like when Schumacher took out Damon Hill in 1994 to seal his Championship and when he attempted to do so again to Villeneuve in 1997.
Does anyone know for sure that the stewards didn't discuss the infraction with Ferrari prior to issuing the penalty? I've seen plenty of occasions when watching an IMSA, Indy, or even a NASCAR race where you team bosses pleading their cases to race officials before a penalty is handed down.
The fact that it took nearly 10 laps before the penalty was issued from the time of the alleged infraction would have given plenty of time for that to have taken place, but in 2 weeks since this happened, there has been no evidence presented or reports to show that there was ever any discussion with Ferrari to give the position up. The fact that so much time had elapsed for the penalty to be issued indicates that it wasn't so black and white as others may have us believe.
Then maybe the Ferrari boss could have be proactive. SKY Sports had it up on the TV screen fairly quickly that the incident was under investigation and it was several laps before the penalty was announced. I would find it hard to believe that someone from pit wall wasn't in front of the stewards presenting their side.
They could have then offered to have Vettel cede the position to Hammy while he still had time to take it back before the checkered. If not then it's time for someone at Ferrari to be fired.
[QUOTE=Professor Helmüt Tester;15912783]It sounds like you're suggesting that F1 adopt a "professional wrestling" rules-set - "We're serious...but just kidding".
Those advocating for "No penalty !" seem think that calling ***** and strikes in professional racing is a positive sum game. It's not. It could be zero sum, or it could be negative sum. Let's imagine the wailing and moaning if nothing had been done here. It always occurs, but it usually dies down because it was the option "not chosen", the complaints are about imaginary outcomes.
I have never claimed to be a rules expert. I am simply a currently-practicing FIA International Steward, working for two different racing series - one open-wheel, one closed-wheel. Our obligations are to understand the rules & regulations adopted by each series we're nominated to work with, and apply those rules when asked. We are chosen for these roles due to our experience and performance in the less-visible forms of motorsport. Our general mantra is "Don't be part of the story". In Canada, unfortunately, the story swept them up. They don't want to be in that spot, either...but they have a responsibility.
Admit what ? Your demand is silly.
Since you don't have time for F1 anymore, a bit of advice - don't sit too close to the ring...flying chairs and sweat and stuff.
[/QUOTE
As much as I find the picture you posted entertaining and gave me a good laugh, ultimately you're deflecting from the very option you said was available as a possible outcome. The stewards went with a draconian penalty with the knowledge that this would ultimately kill the race. By letter of the law (rules), they defend their position, but there was a better solution, a middle ground. To coin a phrase from those of us that race to have "situational awareness", at the end of the day, F1 failed their fans by not displaying situational awareness of the circumstances of what the fans want. Ultimately this is entertainment.
Don't sell yourself short, you're as close to a rules expert based on your job description that we're going to get here and no one is questioning that the letter of the law was not put forth, but things aren't always black and white and the severity of the penalty is what has been criticized when there were other options available.
Then maybe the Ferrari boss could have be proactive. SKY Sports had it up on the TV screen fairly quickly that the incident was under investigation and it was several laps before the penalty was announced. I would find it hard to believe that someone from pit wall wasn't in front of the stewards presenting their side.
They could have then offered to have Vettel cede the position to Hammy while he still had time to take it back before the checkered. If not then it's time for someone at Ferrari to be fired.
You don't think that the pit wall for Ferrari weren't presenting their side after an investigation was announced - at this level of motorsport? I would find it hard to believe they didn't and ultimately we don't know what was said and it's the race directors call to give the "recommendation" for giving up the position. We don't know if the race director did or didn't. Nothing has been reported and the FIA is not releasing any info. They just want this to go away and thought that it would after a couple days. The fact that it hasn't remotely gone away tells you how egregious the decision was.
^^^Given the state at Ferrari, nothing would surprise me.
Plus you would think the Sky Sports camera guys would shown the footage of Ferrari guys going to confer with officials and reported on it. They certainly have enough guys covering the race.
As much as I find the picture you posted entertaining and gave me a good laugh, ultimately you're deflecting from the very option you said was available as a possible outcome. The stewards went with a draconian penalty with the knowledge that this would ultimately kill the race. By letter of the law (rules), they defend their position, but there was a better solution, a middle ground. To coin a phrase from those of us that race to have "situational awareness", at the end of the day, F1 failed their fans by not displaying situational awareness of the circumstances of what the fans want. Ultimately this is entertainment.
Don't sell yourself short, you're as close to a rules expert based on your job description that we're going to get here and no one is questioning that the letter of the law was not put forth, but things aren't always black and white and the severity of the penalty is what has been criticized when there were other options available.
I somewhat disagree. From the standpoint of the stewards, this is a sport with rules, and their job is to apply the rules in a fair and professional manner. Entertainment is the job of the drivers and teams, not the stewards. And if you back up your chain of causality one step, what ruined the drama of the race was Seb's mistake, not the stewards' application of the rules to that mistake. If Seb didn't make that mistake, or re-entered the track safely with Lewis getting past him, we would have potentially had the racing we wanted. Not sure why so many people are eager to overlook Seb's mistake and hold him faultless for the outcome.
...ultimately you're deflecting from the very option you said was available as a possible outcome.
No deflection at all. That option was not open to the Stewards.
The stewards went with a draconian penalty....
That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think ? Lowest level of penalty that could be applied, if an infraction was found. Clear-headed people seem to acknowledge that there was an infraction (except for the "physics!!!omg" guy).
...with the knowledge that this would ultimately kill the race...
Objection, your Honor - assuming facts not in evidence.
Ultimately, it seems that you're saying that F1 needs to adopt different rules. OK...that's up to F1 management, and the teams, who can then get FIA approval. Go for it. Until then, don't bitch if the rules they agreed upon and adopted are actually used.
I somewhat disagree. From the standpoint of the stewards, this is a sport with rules, and their job is to apply the rules in a fair and professional manner. Entertainment is the job of the drivers and teams, not the stewards. And if you back up your chain of causality one step, what ruined the drama of the race was Seb's mistake, not the stewards' application of the rules to that mistake. If Seb didn't make that mistake, or re-entered the track safely with Lewis getting past him, we would have potentially had the racing we wanted. Not sure why so many people are eager to overlook Seb's mistake and hold him faultless for the outcome.
If we're going to take the position of "Rules are Rules" then legally speaking, precedence is of significance. I present the Monaco 2016 where Hamilton made a mistake, didn't make the corner and then went over and blocked Ricciardo who was on the racing line. OUTCOME: NO PENALTY AT ALL. No ceasing of position, no 5 second penalty etc. Of the 2 incidents we're speaking of, which driver do you feel was more deliberate in blocking vs. trying to regain control of their car?
Just reported by Motorsports.com. I doubt anything will ever be done about it and don't know what the new evidence Ferrari has to present to FIA this weekend: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...L0pYFLzgkqQHRM
If we're going to take the position of "Rules are Rules" then legally speaking, precedence is of significance. I present the Monaco 2016 where Hamilton made a mistake, didn't make the corner and then went over and blocked Ricciardo who was on the racing line. OUTCOME: NO PENALTY AT ALL. No ceasing of position, no 5 second penalty etc. Of the 2 incidents we're speaking of, which driver do you feel was more deliberate in blocking vs. trying to regain control of their car?
Just reported by Motorsports.com. I doubt anything will ever be done about it and don't know what the new evidence Ferrari has to present to FIA this weekend: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...L0pYFLzgkqQHRM
That's a good example and it shows that judgment is needed to decide how to apply the rules in each specific situation. The two situations are similar, but not the same. I can see why Lewis didn't get a penalty at Monaco, but I'm kind of 60/40 on it.
No deflection at all. That option was not open to the Stewards.
Professor, technically you are correct and not surprising you taking up for the stewards. Would you have preferred "F1" had the option of a better option/solution as you seem to have divided the stewards from F1 (in this case F1 being the race director).
That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think ? Lowest level of penalty that could be applied, if an infraction was found. Clear-headed people seem to acknowledge that there was an infraction (except for the "physics!!!omg" guy).
Yes, it was the lowest level penalty by rule. Again, the stewards could have deemed it a racing incident but they felt it was not and gave the lowest penalty in their arsenal. Again, race director could have played a bigger role and not let it get to the stewards.
Objection, your Honor - assuming facts not in evidence.
NOT ASSUMING FACTS. From lap 1 to the last lap, LH was NEVER behind VET more than 5 seconds expect for immediately after his pitstop. He then closed the gap down. On average, LH was 1-3 sec. behind VET the entire race. A 5 second penalty ensured no overtaking would be necessary for HAM.
Ultimately, it seems that you're saying that F1 needs to adopt different rules. OK...that's up to F1 management, and the teams, who can then get FIA approval. Go for it. Until then, don't bitch if the rules they agreed upon and adopted are actually used.
If we're going to take the position of "Rules are Rules" then legally speaking, precedence is of significance. I present the Monaco 2016 where Hamilton made a mistake, didn't make the corner and then went over and blocked Ricciardo who was on the racing line. OUTCOME: NO PENALTY AT ALL. No ceasing of position, no 5 second penalty etc. Of the 2 incidents we're speaking of, which driver do you feel was more deliberate in blocking vs. trying to regain control of their car?
I already responded to this with no response back. The two situations are not the same. HAM came safely back on the track, was still clearly ahead of RIC, and once he gained control of the car the race continued. He left a car-width racing room for RIC at all times. He did bluff RIC into thinking he was going to close the door, but the fact remains that he didn't. RIC fell for the bluff as he didn't want to risk contact. Head-games like that are part of racing, and the bluff happened after HAM came back on the track in a safe manner and not endangering anyone.
I already responded to this with no response back. The two situations are not the same. HAM came safely back on the track, was still clearly ahead of RIC, and once he gained control of the car the race continued. He left a car-width racing room for RIC at all times. He did bluff RIC into thinking he was going to close the door, but the fact remains that he didn't. RIC fell for the bluff as he didn't want to risk contact. Head-games like that are part of racing, and the bluff happened after HAM came back on the track in a safe manner and not endangering anyone.
You failed to see that HAM gained an advantage by not making the corner? It makes the rest of your argument moot.
The 1% cannot have it both ways. VET made a mistake and had to pay the price doesn't apply to HAM made a "mistake" and had to pay the price? 99% of the public and professionals see it one way as "racing", the 1% don't see a middle ground. Whatever.
You failed to see that HAM gained an advantage by not making the corner? It makes the rest of your argument moot.
He did not gain an advantage. He was clearly ahead of RIC BOTH when he left the track AND when he returned safely to it. What advantage did he gain exactly?
VET made a mistake and had to pay the price doesn't apply to HAM made a "mistake" and had to pay the price?
You are missing the point completely. It's not about paying the price for a mistake. There's no rule that says: "Everyone must pay a price for their mistakes".
06-17-2019, 12:17 PM
