-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
F1 Racing
- Thread starter Tony Manx
- Start date
So basically stewards argument 15.3 overrides 48.12 making it a redundant rule. 48.13 means they have pull in the safety car in regardless. And the stewards don't have the power to reduce race laps.
That last bit sounds like they are punting it to courts.
That last bit sounds like they are punting it to courts.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,216
Mercedes already appealing. Not even sleeping on it. They had that bad boy typed up hours ago.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 21,582
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Yeah, it's bad application of the rules by Masi but I don't think there's any getting past article 15.3 when the FIA are eager to let the decision stand.
Masi needs to go and there definitely needs to be a review of how races are directed, it's been totally inadequate this year.
It really wouldn't sit well with me had they effectively punished red bull when they did nothing wrong, they made tactical decisions that fell their way to gain an advantage at the end which can't really be ignored.
It definitely doesn't tarnish Verstappen's achievement but since the excitement has passed there's a level of dissatisfaction with today's race.
Masi needs to go and there definitely needs to be a review of how races are directed, it's been totally inadequate this year.
It really wouldn't sit well with me had they effectively punished red bull when they did nothing wrong, they made tactical decisions that fell their way to gain an advantage at the end which can't really be ignored.
It definitely doesn't tarnish Verstappen's achievement but since the excitement has passed there's a level of dissatisfaction with today's race.
Lol it's hilarious.
Rule 48.12 wasn't followed correctly because we'd already said Safety car in this lap and so that rule overrides the first rule, even if it means the first rule is applied correctly.
So basically admitting they ****** up, but basically saying we have decided 48.13 takes priority over 48.12 because then it means we can say we didn't **** up.
Not sure they did say 15.3 overrides 48.12, just that when the safety car comes in is up to the race director. I think while it's his decision he would still have to follow the rules. The issue is that they said safety car is coming in first (rule 48.13) then after they had given that message changed their mind about the lapped cars (48.12). Basically it's the same as when it first happened, they have cause the issue by changing their minds at the last moment. However, they seem to have found a technicality to avoid admitting fault outright and have avoiding having to change the result.
For me I can see a court agreeing to this to an extent. The issues I do see are:
1) Was Masi persuaded to change his mind by Red Bull, which questions his decision making. (I imagine there will be something on the radio).
2) As I think you pointed out earlier, Sainz was not given the same opportunity as Verstappen, which undermines their claim that the purpose of article 48.12 was to remove lapped cars from interfering with the leaders and Sainz was then interfered with.
Overall I can see Mercedes eventually ending up with some kind of moral victory where a judge would say that the FIA made a right pig's ear of things and brought the sport into disrepute, but that the rules have technically been followed and Max will stay champion.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
But the tactical decisions were only "right" because the FIA made effectively a decision that was against the rules. Had it not restarted, Merc would have made the "right" decision.
Idk Max probably deserves the champ but he didn't deserve that race
See I still disagree that things fell their way. As I've already said, previous incidents were a part of the sport. Yes Bottas took out Max in one race. But it wasn't intentional and it is a part of racing. Yes Max might have won, but he didn't simple as that, it happens in racing to all drivers.
This is completely different. The FIA made a bad and dodgy call knowing it would hand the advantage hugely to Max. Hamilton was never going to be able to defend on those tyres. Had safety car procedures been followed as normal Hamilton would have won. The procedures weren't followed correctly because the FIA rushed to find a way to have some kind of race at the end and then realised they ****** it up and then made an even bigger **** up.
For me it does tarnish Max's achievement because even if you think he's been the better driver this, he was going to lose the race until the FIA intervened and so he should have lost the championship. Max is only champion because of extremely poor and dodgy officiating, nothing more.
Hinges on two things now
1 Does 15.3 take over 48.12 or is 48.12 how 15.3 should be applied.
2 Does anyone have the power to reduce the race by one lap?
It sucks because all anyone wanted was a clean race with little to no controversy, we had that, then Massi screwed it up and neither driver deserved it ending in this way. Either as their 1st or record breaking 8th.
My simple view is Masi applied the rules incorrectly. The race had to finish under a SC. But the rules don't give any remit to fix anything when the race director screws up. Verstappen wins his 1st F1 ***le which he deserved (Hamilton would of as well) but will get questioned about for the rest of his career. Hopefully his probable multiple wins will be far less controversial in their ending.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,216
If masi isn't mixing benzos and alcohol right now he isn't human. I couldn't imagine being him and now having a massive panic attack.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 21,582
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
It fell their way on this occasion because of that but there's too many moving parts to punish RB in my opinion. Like what I'm saying is how can you take away Verstappen's win, he drove a clean race and was first across the finish line?
In rugby there'd be ****** off fans for sure because the wrong driver won that race but ultimately people would say "you have to play the ref" or some other cliché along those lines.
I think because post race penalties are thing in F1 people think this can be rectified, but those penalties are for driver penalties for rule breaking and no rules were broken here by a team or driver.
I think that's a tenuous distinction. Hamilton's bad luck is poor officiating outside of his control whereas Max' was other drivers hitting him and one of those is more legitimate than the other? Max' tyre exploding in Baku because Pirelli gave inaccurate data about their tyres, prompting them to release new guidelines is hardly part of the sport either and had Hamilton not messed up there he'd be world champion now and nobody would be bringing it up.
Today is contentious and correctly so but Verstappen is world drivers champion because he drove well enough over the course of the season, went in to the final race in the lead of the championship (technically) and capitalised on an admittedly huge stroke of luck, but he'd previously had a hell of a lot of bad luck, the fashion of it really is immaterial in my opinion.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,216
Alpha you were like half way to sending a hit man on angus after the Japan game in 2019, I think you can understand people's frustrations.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2015
- Messages
- 7,216
If this was rugby Toto wolf would have a 50 minute video that his burner Twitter account would post.
Actually think this is one of F1's many failures. I'd do away with 5 second and 10 second penalties with the lowest being drive threws. The time penalties rarely are a sanction like today, Hamilton had no good reason to give Verstappen the place back and that shouldn't the case. Anything not served then can a hefty penalty in the next race.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 21,582
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Oh I do for sure! But like, even then I don't think I got to the point where I said Japan only won because of the ref, if I did I was wrong.
Angus does need clipped tho. Him and Masi can go halves on a house share in retirement.
I think we'll just agree to disagree. As I said before I don't see the result changing. At most I see the FIA being heavily criticised for ******* up big time.
Let's just leave it with something we can agree on. Masi made a right mess of this and spoiled the end of what should have been a great finish to the season.
Hate reading all the conspiracy nonsense about how the FIA wanted Max to win. It wasn't true when people said it about Hamilton and its not true now about Max.
All that happened is the race director made an awful call and now the FIA back him because he's their official.
All that happened is the race director made an awful call and now the FIA back him because he's their official.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,208
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
This, I don't think they wanted Max to win but I do think they wanted a "spectacle" on the final lap and that overrode any sense of fairness, legality or better judgement. Short of a miracle, there was no way Hamilton was going to be able to hold Verstappen off with the vast difference in tyre performance.
I just hate how it was presented as RB getting their "1 race lap", you just had 50 of those to do the job and had the SC not come out, wouldn't have stood a chance. Why should they then get 1 more with things now heavily stacked in the favour all in the name of spectacle? It was ridiculous. It's like getting to the end of a marathon where 1 person got a lift for the last few miles and then saying "right, sprint to the end for the win"
Some extra musings if 15.3 overrides 48.12 it overrides 48.13 as well. Reality is 15.3 is about safety not racing and is just saying he gets to decide when not how. 48.12 is about procedure for applying 15.3. 48.13 can't overrides 48.12 because if a car crashed under the safety car it needs to stay out.
Any argument Masi didn't know the rules fails because he was applying them as presented then decided he could just ignore them.
The issue for isn't about if Masi knowingly applied the rules incorrectly in a way materially disadvantaged an aggrived party. Its about what can be done about that. Whilst common sense says you roll back the race one lap I don't how any 3rd party has the power to do that. In terms of race result all they can do is void it leading to the same result from a championship perspective.
What can be done is Masi being fired for gross misconduct and if it gets into real courts huge payout to Mercedes and Hamilton for lost revenue.
This is going to be fun....
Any argument Masi didn't know the rules fails because he was applying them as presented then decided he could just ignore them.
The issue for isn't about if Masi knowingly applied the rules incorrectly in a way materially disadvantaged an aggrived party. Its about what can be done about that. Whilst common sense says you roll back the race one lap I don't how any 3rd party has the power to do that. In terms of race result all they can do is void it leading to the same result from a championship perspective.
What can be done is Masi being fired for gross misconduct and if it gets into real courts huge payout to Mercedes and Hamilton for lost revenue.
This is going to be fun....
