Helped somewhat by the heated battles between Verstappen and Hamilton seen throughout the 2021 Formula One championship, criticism on race director Michael Masi has mounted. But what next after the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix?
It absolutely doesn’t. You would get laughed out of any court with that interpretation.
Article 15.3 provides overriding authority for a race director on the use of SC. It's part of Sporting Rules. FIA can decide to fire him by citing, "he acted on his own", but by virtue of having given that right and that having been exercised in his official capacity, the decision cannot be overturned.
Please post the exact rules here please
It does say that; however; the context of overriding authority could, im not an expert, be limted to outside of the defined processes. e.g once all cars are unlapped the RD can choose when to bring it in. It doesnt give him option to disregard 48.12 "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" to all drivers, then enact 48.13 under 15.3. as cover?
Last edited by Roo on 13 Dec 2021, 17:57, edited 1 time in total.
Article 15.3 provides overriding authority for a race director on the use of SC. It's part of Sporting Rules. FIA can decide to fire him by citing, "he acted on his own", but by virtue of having given that right and that having been exercised in his official capacity, the decision cannot be overturned.
The rules don't allow the RD to make up things on the fly. He has authority to apply the rules as he sees fit. He didn't because what he did do was not in the rules. To say otherwise is to just replace the entire set of SC rules with one new rule: the RD will do what he wants with the SC when he wants and however he he wants. Which is, of course, entirely untenable because it opens up the very real possibility that the RD can be unduly influenced by external actors.
Rules are words that can be interpreted for convenience by wise men in the suits! To that extent, FIA rules are famously written vague and provide various overriding sub parts and gaping holes. If not for that, how do you think F1 engineers could have managed to find loop holes in those. If FIA wants to defend themselves, as part of defending their RD, it wouldn't be that hard.
Yes, and that has to change. Both for sporting regulations, and technical regulations (as they have been arbitrarily changed this year with negative impact on RB). The rules should be clear, actionable, and should not change on the fly. And if within that set loopholes are found, well, props to the team - they should be allowed to exploit them for at least that season, like MB was allowed to exploit the DAS-loophole for a whole year.
It absolutely doesn’t. You would get laughed out of any court with that interpretation.
Article 15.3 provides overriding authority for a race director on the use of SC. It's part of Sporting Rules. FIA can decide to fire him by citing, "he acted on his own", but by virtue of having given that right and that having been exercised in his official capacity, the decision cannot be overturned.
The rules don't allow the RD to make up things on the fly. He has authority to apply the rules as he sees fit. He didn't because what he did do was not in the rules. To say otherwise is to just replace the entire set of SC rules with one new rule: the RD will do what he wants with the SC when he wants and however he he wants. Which is, of course, entirely untenable because it opens up the very real possibility that the RD can be unduly influenced by external actors.
It was in the rules, because the specific message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" wasn't sent to the teams but instead a message saying that specific cars can over take. So Rule 48.12 is totally irrelevant in this case, and the safety car did not need to wait until the end of the following lap to come in.
The rules don't allow the RD to make up things on the fly. He has authority to apply the rules as he sees fit. He didn't because what he did do was not in the rules. To say otherwise is to just replace the entire set of SC rules with one new rule: the RD will do what he wants with the SC when he wants and however he he wants. Which is, of course, entirely untenable because it opens up the very real possibility that the RD can be unduly influenced by external actors.
Rules are words that can be interpreted for convenience by wise men in the suits! To that extent, FIA rules are famously written vague and provide various overriding sub parts and gaping holes. If not for that, how do you think F1 engineers could have managed to find loop holes in those. If FIA wants to defend themselves, as part of defending their RD, it wouldn't be that hard.
When the rules affect outcomes worth many millions of pounds, people much richer than the FIA can bring a lot of suits to the party.
I am not sure where is this particular decision affecting the outcomes worth many millions of pounds? I am keen to know.
Article 15.3 provides overriding authority for a race director on the use of SC. It's part of Sporting Rules. FIA can decide to fire him by citing, "he acted on his own", but by virtue of having given that right and that having been exercised in his official capacity, the decision cannot be overturned.
Please post the exact rules here please
It does say that; however; the context of overriding authority could, im not an expert, be limted to outside of the defined processes. e.g once all cars are unlapped the RD can choose when to bring it in.
This.
He can decide to bring it in after two scenarios:
1) it’s safe to restart and lappers stay in place
2) if lappers get a pass around, they all do, and it’s at minimum another pace lap.
He has discretion, but only if those two conditions are met. They weren’t.
Article 15.3 provides overriding authority for a race director on the use of SC. It's part of Sporting Rules. FIA can decide to fire him by citing, "he acted on his own", but by virtue of having given that right and that having been exercised in his official capacity, the decision cannot be overturned.
The rules don't allow the RD to make up things on the fly. He has authority to apply the rules as he sees fit. He didn't because what he did do was not in the rules. To say otherwise is to just replace the entire set of SC rules with one new rule: the RD will do what he wants with the SC when he wants and however he he wants. Which is, of course, entirely untenable because it opens up the very real possibility that the RD can be unduly influenced by external actors.
It was in the rules, because the specific message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" wasn't sent to the teams but instead a message saying that specific cars can over take. So Rule 48.12 is totally irrelevant in this case, and the safety car did not need to wait until the end of the following lap to come in.
Lapped cars may overtake now was displayed for everyone to see on the TV live world feed!
Rules are words that can be interpreted for convenience by wise men in the suits! To that extent, FIA rules are famously written vague and provide various overriding sub parts and gaping holes. If not for that, how do you think F1 engineers could have managed to find loop holes in those. If FIA wants to defend themselves, as part of defending their RD, it wouldn't be that hard.
When the rules affect outcomes worth many millions of pounds, people much richer than the FIA can bring a lot of suits to the party.
I am not sure where is this particular decision affecting the outcomes worth many millions of pounds? I am keen to know.
It's more a general response to your position that the rules are vague and can be interpreted. At some point, someone is going to think the cost of taking the FIA to court is well worth it.
In the case of the safety car situation, the same decision played out again might be the difference between a team gaining or losing a place in the constructors' standings. And that can be the difference of millions of pounds lost or gained. On Sunday, I don't think that happened but it could and then it'll be messy again.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Article 15.3 provides overriding authority for a race director on the use of SC. It's part of Sporting Rules. FIA can decide to fire him by citing, "he acted on his own", but by virtue of having given that right and that having been exercised in his official capacity, the decision cannot be overturned.
The rules don't allow the RD to make up things on the fly. He has authority to apply the rules as he sees fit. He didn't because what he did do was not in the rules. To say otherwise is to just replace the entire set of SC rules with one new rule: the RD will do what he wants with the SC when he wants and however he he wants. Which is, of course, entirely untenable because it opens up the very real possibility that the RD can be unduly influenced by external actors.
It was in the rules, because the specific message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" wasn't sent to the teams but instead a message saying that specific cars can over take. So Rule 48.12 is totally irrelevant in this case, and the safety car did not need to wait until the end of the following lap to come in.
So Masi’s defense will be bypassing the messaging system means he wasn’t bound by those rules?
So if he specifically messages certain drivers he can hold them to different rules than if he used official means?
Rules are words that can be interpreted for convenience by wise men in the suits! To that extent, FIA rules are famously written vague and provide various overriding sub parts and gaping holes. If not for that, how do you think F1 engineers could have managed to find loop holes in those. If FIA wants to defend themselves, as part of defending their RD, it wouldn't be that hard.
When the rules affect outcomes worth many millions of pounds, people much richer than the FIA can bring a lot of suits to the party.
I am not sure where is this particular decision affecting the outcomes worth many millions of pounds? I am keen to know.
It does say that; however; the context of overriding authority could, im not an expert, be limted to outside of the defined processes. e.g once all cars are unlapped the RD can choose when to bring it in.
This.
He can decide to bring it in after two scenarios:
1) it’s safe to restart and lappers stay in place
2) if lappers get a pass around, they all do, and it’s at minimum another pace lap.
He has discretion, but only if those two conditions are met. They weren’t.
I updated my previous.
I'm not saying he was right, i question whether it's being use as cover for not following 48.12
It does say that; however; the context of overriding authority could, im not an expert, be limted to outside of the defined processes. e.g once all cars are unlapped the RD can choose when to bring it in.
This.
He can decide to bring it in after two scenarios:
1) it’s safe to restart and lappers stay in place
2) if lappers get a pass around, they all do, and it’s at minimum another pace lap.
He has discretion, but only if those two conditions are met. They weren’t.
I updated my previous.
I'm not saying he was right, i question whether it's being use as cover for not following 48.12
Just saw.
The way the rules are written, if lapped cars are allowed to overtake, they all must, and if that procedure is set in place, it’s an automatic extra caution lap at minimum. That extra caution lap in this scenario is a checkered flag.
The rules don't allow the RD to make up things on the fly. He has authority to apply the rules as he sees fit. He didn't because what he did do was not in the rules. To say otherwise is to just replace the entire set of SC rules with one new rule: the RD will do what he wants with the SC when he wants and however he he wants. Which is, of course, entirely untenable because it opens up the very real possibility that the RD can be unduly influenced by external actors.
It was in the rules, because the specific message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" wasn't sent to the teams but instead a message saying that specific cars can over take. So Rule 48.12 is totally irrelevant in this case, and the safety car did not need to wait until the end of the following lap to come in.
So Masi’s defense will be bypassing the messaging system means he wasn’t bound by those rules?
So if he specifically messages certain drivers he can hold them to different rules than if he used official means?
That will go over spectacularly in court.
The issue with the argument here is that the FIA in the appeal says 48.12 wasn't wholly applied. Dismissing it as irrelevant might be false.
If we step away from Max-Lewis conversation, what comes out from this season is that the governing body influenced the outcome. Not only for the driver’s championship, but the overall standings in both competitions. Why one driver is allowed to not leave space on the outside, but not another?! Why one is allowed to dive bomb on the inside, and another is penalized for it?! Why some lapped cars are allowed to get back on the lead lap and race, and others are not?! Finally, if a precedent is set in place, and teams are using it to make decisions in the next races, why the rules and the application of rules were changed without informing them?!
The playing field was not the same for everyone and it might’ve affected the constructors championship and the prize allocation.
This can have huge implications on the future of the sport. Mercedes might consider their future, if they end up with the short end of the stick. Red Bull might consider to pull out if the outcome is changed. Audi, Porsche and others might decide not to join a farcical show. Thousands of people might lose their jobs because someone whimsically interpreted the sporting rules. Many long-standing, paying to view, fans will decide to stop following the sport, thus reducing the revenue to news sites and F1, because it’s not a sport anymore.
What’s worst is if some backroom deals are reached that allow for competitive advantage in the next seasons.
This should be the most advanced form of motorsport and example to the lower levels of competitions. Instead, it became engineered spectacle where everyone is questioning if any win has merit.
Back to the last race. I’d like to hear explanation of the race control’s decision making during the last few laps. We have heard answers to specific questions, to look like they’re cooperating, but not anything to give us an idea what were the reasons and what they wanted to achieve.
For example, if they wanted to race, why red flag was not given? They had few laps to make the decision, and it would’ve given the drivers at least few laps to battle it out. Why? Because someone would’ve benefited from it, others would’ve get unfair advantage, or the field would’ve been equalized when it comes to the tires?!
Why the race control decided to not allow the lapped cars to overtake? What changed after that decision was made and implications were assessed? What new info was made available and have forced race control to change the decision? Why it was decided to give the opportunity to benefit from it only to some drivers? Why the cars with harder tires were not given appropriate time to warm up their tires ahead of the restart and their safety was jeopardized? Who made those decisions? Since teams were allowed to comment, why they accepted some and declined other?
Personally, I want to hear explanation what happened at the last race. Everyone expected a race, drivers were warned to keep it fair, and they performed excellent. Race control decided to force one-lap shootout and if that’s what this sport should be, I’ll put it in the Nascar column and stop following it as I have for the last few decades.
