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.
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?
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".
Correct, there is not, I was referring to those here that have said VET made a mistake and should have to pay the price. Not referring to the decision by officials.
Correct, there is not, I was referring to those here that have said VET made a mistake and should have to pay the price. Not referring to the decision by officials.
I agree. It's not the mistake, per se, that cost him the penalty and the position. If he managed to get back on track safely, left racing room for HAM, AND kept his position, then the mistake would have cost him nothing, like what happened with HAM and RIC in Monaco.
Correct, there is not, I was referring to those here that have said VET made a mistake and should have to pay the price. Not referring to the decision by officials.
Originally Posted by hf1
I agree. It's not the mistake, per se, that cost him the penalty and the position. If he managed to get back on track safely, left racing room for HAM, AND kept his position, then the mistake would have cost him nothing, like what happened with HAM and RIC in Monaco.
Yes, obviously it can't just be about the mistake - the mistake has to be viewed in the context of the rules, the situation, and the consequences. That's why stewards need to look at each situation case by case, and the rules can't just be applied in a cookbook manner. We need to consider that maybe the stewards understand their jobs better than the rest of us.
Your statement re: "intent" lacks specific foundation. The 2019 F1 Penalty Table is fairly specific -
The Driving Infringements section includes the following elements -
"Hindering another driver" "Impeding another driver" "Impeding another driver dangerously or with apparent intent"
The first - "hindering" - a violation of ISC Appendix L, carries a 5 or 10 sec time penalty, or a drive-through, or a 10 sec stop & go.
The second - "impeding" - a violation of the F1 Sporting Regulations Article 31.6, carries an in-race penalty of a 5 or 10 sec time penalty, or a drive-through.
The third - "impeding dangerously or with apparent intent" - also SR Article 31.6, carries an in-race penalty of a drive-through or a 10 sec stop & go.
The "Leaving the track" section has only three elements:
"Leaving the track and gaining an advantage" "Leaving the track and rejoining unsafely" "Leaving the track without justifiable reason"
All are considered violations of the F1 Sporting Regulations Article 27.3. All carry the same penalty for occurrences during race sessions - 5 or 10 sec time penalty, or a drive-through penalty.These are the regulations were agreed-to by the F1 teams before the start of the 2019 season.
In the FIA stewarding world, every player I know looked at that incident, as it happened, and said "OK...by F1 rules, Vettel's gotta give that position back, or he's going to get a penalty."
It's not a popularity contest.
I'm totally OK with the fact that a huge majority of actual professional and amateur racers think it's wrong. A huge majority of professional and amateur racers don't even understand the rules that they race under (I have plenty of experience dealing with that) in their own series.
Okay, based on your whacky assessment, anytime a driver spins and hinders or impedes another driver, they should receive a time penalty. Think about that. If a driver spins or even get sideways and another driver lifts to make sure they don't get up in the first driver's mess, that first driver should be assessed a time penalty. Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
Okay, based on your whacky assessment, anytime a driver spins and hinders or impedes another driver, they should receive a time penalty. Think about that. If a driver spins or even get sideways and another driver lifts to make sure they don't get up in the first driver's mess, that first driver should be assessed a time penalty. Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
You realize that's not his "whacky assessment" those are the FIA regulations right...
Okay, based on your whacky assessment, anytime a driver spins and hinders or impedes another driver, they should receive a time penalty. Think about that. If a driver spins or even get sideways and another driver lifts to make sure they don't get up in the first driver's mess, that first driver should be assessed a time penalty. Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
Originally Posted by DTMiller
C'mon guys, we've entered the best part of a rennlist thread where an actual expert arrives and is told they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Different snapshots that tell nothing. Watch the videos and you will see. In Monaco there was an opportunity for RIC to take the space available and not brake. He didn't, as HAM bluffed as if he was going to close the door yet he didn't. Racing room was then closed but that was later, only after their distance increased and HAM took off -- RIC had no way of getting anywhere near him then. That snapshot was taken AFTER RIC parked it and HAM took off. In Canada, HAM had no such opportunity as racing room was NEVER provided for him by VET.
In short, when RIC was in a position to overtake HAM, the racing room was there. When HAM was in a position to overtake VET, racing room was denied (as VET was coming back on track) and HAM was forced to brake to avoid contact.
Okay, based on your whacky assessment, anytime a driver spins and hinders or impedes another driver, they should receive a time penalty. Think about that. If a driver spins or even get sideways and another driver lifts to make sure they don't get up in the first driver's mess, that first driver should be assessed a time penalty. Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
Different snapshots that tell nothing. Watch the videos and you will see. In Monaco there was an opportunity for RIC to take the space available and not brake. He didn't, so HAM took off. Racing room was then closed but only as their distance increased and HAM took off -- RIC had no way of getting anywhere near him then. In Canada, HAM had no such opportunity as racing room was NEVER provided for him by VET. In short, when RIC was in a position to overtake HAM, the racing room was there. When HAM was in a position to overtake VET, racing room was denied and he was forced to brake to avoid contact.
Again, 99% of the people see it as racing - that's why there wasn't an uproar in 2016 and there is now. I'm pointing it out because it's similar enough to compare.
Again, 99% of the people see it as racing - that's why there wasn't an uproar in 2016 and there is now. I'm pointing it out because it's similar enough to compare.
It's not "just racing" if the rules (which every team has accepted) clearly penalize unsafe re-entry and denying racing room after leaving the track. If you think these rules are useless or damaging to the sport, that's a different subject, but I think everyone agrees that once the rules are there they should be implemented as transparently and consistently as possible. Racing without rules already has a name: Demolition Derby. Gets boring quickly for most people.
Again, 99% of the people see it as racing - that's why there wasn't an uproar in 2016 and there is now. I'm pointing it out because it's similar enough to compare.
Where do you get the 99% from? It's nowhere close to 99% even in this thread, and who knows what people think who haven't bothered to comment somewhere on the internet. We should add an anonymous poll to this thread.
Two words to conclude, based on the ongoing trajectory of weirdness and denial here - "short bus".
Adios, kiddies. Off to deal with actual racers this weekend.
Feel free to create any wild interpretations and theories that you'd like. Most of you (99% maybe ?) will be wrong, but I support your right to be mind-bendingly, inconsolably wrong !
06-17-2019, 03:09 PM
