I think if it said any cars can overtake then possibly, but any cars are required means all.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
F1 Racing
- Thread starter Tony Manx
- Start date
Yeah it's a complete fucker.
The real one I think is allowing the restart in the same lap there no muntia there. The others are just fishing. It will get chucked out but if it doesn't they'll make a decision to call it back one lap as it would of finish under the safety car. Which is what being asked by Mercedes.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,216
"Any" is very vague so they'll have to off of precedent I guess, but they probably won't review that. The past about prescribing when the safety car comes in means that masi at minimum needs to step down.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,215
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
I don't think any is particularly vague given the following bits saying it is required. If any lapped car is required to pass the SC, that is the same as all are. Also when it says the last lapped care would also mean all, as by definition only 1 car can be the last lapped car and as all the cars in front of them are required to have passed, that also makes it mean all.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,216
I mean I just looked up any in the OED and had a brain cramp. The smallest words are often the most useful for law writers in terms of being able to do whatever they want. I think that's what there intent for common practice was but they left themselves for wiggle room.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,215
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Not sure how though. Surely linguistically and in logic, "any" is where you have multiple conditions and don't need every one to be true, "all" is where every condition must be true. In the FIA law there is only 1 condition though, that a car is lapped. In this case "any" and "all" mean the same. Any lapped car and all lapped cars both return the same cars. There isn't a way in which "any" could be interpreted to just mean the cars between Hamilton and Verstappen, as any lapped car would include the ones behind them that did not pass the SC.
TBH I think you're right, they will find a way to justify it. I just personally disagree as for me the language is clear.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 21,588
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
I don't see how they can do anything but void the race even if it's adjudged to be wrong. You can't really say that Hamilton would have won if it didn't happen and switch even if that is the case, who knows what can happen on that lap?!
Maybe half points from when the SC was called but that's would be very hollow. Masi has put the FIA in a **** position regardless.
Maybe half points from when the SC was called but that's would be very hollow. Masi has put the FIA in a **** position regardless.
At the being of any technical spec for work it comes with a glossary of terms for things like SHOULD and MAY. I'd be very surprised if the FIA sporting regulations don't have something similar.
But I know in Magic The Gathering for instance ANY is a keyword that allow for targeting a selection. It just means everything can be selected but they don't all have to be.
I just don't think if the result gets changed its the specific rule they'd change it over. It will be the allowing the SC in.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Massi just needs to resign tbh. Been **** all year anyway
That's why the SC rule is only one that matters. If Mercedes can prove the race should of finished under the SC they have a clear classification. You basically remove the last lap.
Relasing the incorrect amount of cars they are just not going to get an answer to apply.
The Verstappen thing is clear a 5 seconds penalty (or more). But I think they'd struggle under that.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,216
I agree with how you guys are reading it, I just think they'll find away out of it somehow.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,216
My heart goes out to everyone involved not named Michael masi. What a **** situation to be in.
For me you're kind of using the same language as in a penalty try. "Would he have definitely won?"
If the race had been red flagged and restarted? No, not definitely.
If the race had been restarted with Max behind the lapped cars? No, not definitely.
If the safety cars rules had been fully followed at the end once some lapped cars went past? Yes, definitely. This is the issue here because if the wording is correct and it had been followed correctly then the race would have ended under the safety car. Yes there might have been a sudden mechanical malfunction or an absolutely huge, rookie error by Hamilton behind the safety car, but that would be like disallowing a clear penalty try because the player might have dropped it at the last moment.
I think everyone is in agreement that Masi has royally ****** up. Question is how and should it be resolved off track? For me yes. I'll admit I'm biased towards Hamilton, but that call blatantly favoured Max and from my reading of the rules, broke the rules. I get that you say Max might deserve it because of incidents like when Bottas took him out. However, those are normal incidents that are part of racing. That's luck. Bottas definitely didn't intend to take Max out, he just ****** up big time and was punished for it. However this called clearly favoured one driver over another and a championship shouldn't be decided that way. Ending under a safety car is unlucky for Max, but he was going to lose anyway without it. He only won because of a dodgy decision by the officials.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,216
Yeah but magic the gathering is a highly competitive game with high stakes so rules are carefully written. This on the other hand is formula 1. /s somewhat
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,216
But do we ever overturn on field results due to **** refereeing? Usually teams get an apology letter.
True, on the other hand I'd argue this is different to a ref making a split second decision. The FIA had plenty of time to decide and knew the rules. The situation isn't exactly the same.
