2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix - Yas Marina, Dec 10 - 12

[Bill_Kar]

Two separate major problems have occurred this season. First is the inconsistency regarding stewarding. The second is breaking of the sporting code by organization that is suppose to be enforcing it.
The first is a problem in itself, but of lesser importance, since no amount of additional rules would ever produce "absolutely consistent" results.
The second one however is a major issue. It is quite clear that "overriding authority over the use of the safety car" means the authority when to use the safety car, not the actual procedure how safety car is deployed. Its like in football, there are some rules that specify what action warrants a penalty, but it will always be at the referees discretion to decide for the penalty or not. But once a penalty is called, there is no more room for interpretation of how it needs to be executed, meaning, the ball has to be placed at the specific location, the goalkeeper has to stay behind the goal line... Those are not open for interpretation.
That's why all this has been sickening. It would have been sickening if it was reversed between Hamilton and Max.
For the people that cheer for Max, he is a fully deserving champion, most people do not question that. But standing here and saying that this kind of behavior by the FIA is OK just because it helped your driver is strange to say the least.

Can you show me a post that actually spells out that the behaviour of the FIA is OK? I would say the absolute vast majority sees the flaws in the decision made. And this level of intervention personally has little place in this sport.

But again, according to the stewards he acted within his remit as race director based on his role within the structure and the “powers” afforded to him by how his role is defined. Do I LIKE it? Hell no. Which is why there needs to be a clear out/re write as the statutes/definitions/role limitations have been shown to be majorly deficient. Equally the leaning on officials and trying to influence the race result is shameful behaviour. It was in Ferrari times, and it is so now. Masi hasn’t been firm enough and taken no action, even though he must have known it restricts his ability to function in his role under pressure

Most lawyers have come out and said rules and regulations do not work like that. If there is a rule that overrules all others it has to be explicitly stated

This is the second line of defense of this travesty.

"Yeah, rules were broken, but RD, typically, has the authority to override... ANY article?!?!"

Which of course is BS. No one in his right mind would think that after reading the regulations, apart from FIA themselves. The spirit AND the letter of the law do not support anything remotely close to something like this.

They don't even believe it, they just wanted to come up with something on the fly just to disregard Mercedes initial process.

As many people have stated, in an independent court, FIA's defense will fall like a house of cards.

[PlatinumZealot]

That lawyer is from the UK he is clearly biased. They don't have a good standing at a court, because first of all, CAS doesn't even have jurisdiction over the FIA, second even if they say that the last lap was invalid, that would shorten the race retrospectively, and hence not appropriate. With just 57 laps, this would not be a race according to the 2021 F1 Sporting Regulations, which requires a race to be at least 305km.

What was the race distance at Spa this year?

Exactly. Spa kills their argument that a race has to be full length. Indeed, the rules allow for shortened races and for less than full points to be given in such circumstances. Either way, they can't argue "all races only count if they're 305km long".

If the race is over half (or three quarter) distance it is full points awarded.

A GP was ended one lap early a couple years ago when celebrity got ahead of herself with waving the chequered flag.

Full points were awarded.

The same for 57 laps. lewis would win the race.

[nimoraca]

Two separate major problems have occurred this season. First is the inconsistency regarding stewarding. The second is breaking of the sporting code by organization that is suppose to be enforcing it.
The first is a problem in itself, but of lesser importance, since no amount of additional rules would ever produce "absolutely consistent" results.
The second one however is a major issue. It is quite clear that "overriding authority over the use of the safety car" means the authority when to use the safety car, not the actual procedure how safety car is deployed. Its like in football, there are some rules that specify what action warrants a penalty, but it will always be at the referees discretion to decide for the penalty or not. But once a penalty is called, there is no more room for interpretation of how it needs to be executed, meaning, the ball has to be placed at the specific location, the goalkeeper has to stay behind the goal line... Those are not open for interpretation.
That's why all this has been sickening. It would have been sickening if it was reversed between Hamilton and Max.
For the people that cheer for Max, he is a fully deserving champion, most people do not question that. But standing here and saying that this kind of behavior by the FIA is OK just because it helped your driver is strange to say the least.

Can you show me a post that actually spells out that the behaviour of the FIA is OK? I would say the absolute vast majority sees the flaws in the decision made. And this level of intervention personally has little place in this sport.

But again, according to the stewards he acted within his remit as race director based on his role within the structure and the “powers” afforded to him by how his role is defined. Do I LIKE it? Hell no. Which is why there needs to be a clear out/re write as the statutes/definitions/role limitations have been shown to be majorly deficient. Equally the leaning on officials and trying to influence the race result is shameful behaviour. It was in Ferrari times, and it is so now. Masi hasn’t been firm enough and taken no action, even though he must have known it restricts his ability to function in his role under pressure

There are a bunch of posts that imply everything is fine, because it is "in the rules". There were a bunch explicitly stating it as well but I don't have time to dig them up.

[Roo]

Can you show me a post that actually spells out that the behaviour of the FIA is OK? I would say the absolute vast majority sees the flaws in the decision made. And this level of intervention personally has little place in this sport.

But again, according to the stewards he acted within his remit as race director based on his role within the structure and the “powers” afforded to him by how his role is defined. Do I LIKE it? Hell no. Which is why there needs to be a clear out/re write as the statutes/definitions/role limitations have been shown to be majorly deficient. Equally the leaning on officials and trying to influence the race result is shameful behaviour. It was in Ferrari times, and it is so now. Masi hasn’t been firm enough and taken no action, even though he must have known it restricts his ability to function in his role under pressure

Most lawyers have come out and said rules and regulations do not work like that. If there is a rule that overrules all others it has to be explicitly stated

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a rule quoted as such. Equally in my profession (aviation) I can vary ANY rule/standing order as I see fit.as that’s the power bestowed on me by the regulator. I just have to be able to justify my actions in court and potentially face criminal prosecution if I can’t. So not something to do lightly but on minor things, this happens on a fairly regular basis. The rules are a framework (this is how lawyers explained it to us). To be used when able, to be varied as required as long as the priorities of actions are justified. The world isn’t a perfect place and neither is flying an airplane

In the case of 48 it’s more of a directive than rule, with power bestowed to either ended of the hierarchical safety car procedure. Even with the decision he had to ensure it was a fair competition for all.

[101FlyingDutchman]

Can you show me a post that actually spells out that the behaviour of the FIA is OK? I would say the absolute vast majority sees the flaws in the decision made. And this level of intervention personally has little place in this sport.

But again, according to the stewards he acted within his remit as race director based on his role within the structure and the “powers” afforded to him by how his role is defined. Do I LIKE it? Hell no. Which is why there needs to be a clear out/re write as the statutes/definitions/role limitations have been shown to be majorly deficient. Equally the leaning on officials and trying to influence the race result is shameful behaviour. It was in Ferrari times, and it is so now. Masi hasn’t been firm enough and taken no action, even though he must have known it restricts his ability to function in his role under pressure

Most lawyers have come out and said rules and regulations do not work like that. If there is a rule that overrules all others it has to be explicitly stated

This is the second line of defense of this travesty.

"Yeah, rules were broken, but RD, typically, has the authority to override... ANY article?!?!"

Which of course is BS. No one in his right mind would think that after reading the regulations, apart from FIA themselves. The spirit AND the letter of the law do not support anything remotely close to something like this.

They don't even believe it, they just wanted to come up with something on the fly just to disregard Mercedes initial process.

As many people have stated, in an independent court, FIA's defense will fall like a house of cards.

Your opinion. Not fact.

It might prove true, it might not.

Be interesting to see if it goes to court and then legal boffins far deeper into the matter will be able to duke it out. Fair to say, us making these “cast iron” judgements from behind a telly, is little more than bluster/opinion

[PlatinumZealot]

Another thing, why were the cars behind Max not allowed to pass so that Carlos Sainz can have a go at Max if he wanted to. Max appears to be the only guy that benefited from the "selective rule application" which clearly breaks the fairness of the sport.

I pointed that out right after the stewards findings were released. My believe is n0 one wants to respond because the RD is indirectly saying the only to drivers that mattered where P1 & P2, and thats is a problem all by itself.

This is the ugliest can of worms I've ever seen in this sport!

I'm sorry that Max and Jos had to be party to it.

I feel for them after all the years of fighting their way to the top. Lewis is OK. He already has 7 championships and he feels for them too. I guess Lewis could do with allowing Max this one know he is the moral champion.

If Mercedes builds a monster next year I will be fine with Max and his championship, but I will never get over how the race was manipulated.

[Roo]

It might prove true, it might not.

Be interesting to see if it goes to court and then legal boffins far deeper into the matter will be able to duke it out. Fair to say, us making these “cast iron” judgements from behind a telly, is little more than bluster/opinion

How do you think RB could defend the rules, for that one decision, to ensure the title is awarded to them?

[nevill3]

Maybe Mercedes will be bribed by the FIA to drop it.......

"well Toto if you drop it we will tell you what happened with Ferrari last year"

[Starkblood80]

Yes, by saying (paraphrasing) he can do what he likes with the safety car. It was all to let them race to the flag, forgetting that this wasn’t just a head to head race between Max and Lewis like at the RoC. Just watch Strolls last lap onboard, I’m surprised that there wasn’t a last lap crash it was pandemonium.

Do you happen to have a link to strolls last lap onboard?

It’s on p157 of this thread near the bottom.

That footage shows just how much of a FUBAR that last lap was

[101FlyingDutchman]

It might prove true, it might not.

Be interesting to see if it goes to court and then legal boffins far deeper into the matter will be able to duke it out. Fair to say, us making these “cast iron” judgements from behind a telly, is little more than bluster/opinion

How do you think RB could defend the rules, for that one decision, to ensure the title is awarded to them?

They don’t have to as far as I can see? Their defense will be simple imho (not that they’re one of the parties involved other than “witness”), and say it was the race directors decision. What do they have to justify?

[cooken]

A big part of the problem is that for some reason the RD seems to have entertainment within his remit. Really, the RD should give zero consideration for entertainment value in his decision making. Reason being, entertainment value is nearly proportional to chaos, which is inversely proportional to safety. So decision making based on improving the show will in most cases increase danger.

I think most of us can appreciate that having some of the lapped cars in the mix with the field bunched up like that was a mess and to quote Sainz "dangerous". Clearly, the safest course of action world have been to let all the lapped cars go past - which is precisely why that's what happens 99.9% of the time.

So the RD compromised safety for entertainment. That should most definitely not be happening.

[dans79]

It might prove true, it might not.

Be interesting to see if it goes to court and then legal boffins far deeper into the matter will be able to duke it out. Fair to say, us making these “cast iron” judgements from behind a telly, is little more than bluster/opinion

How do you think RB could defend the rules, for that one decision, to ensure the title is awarded to them?

They don’t have to as far as I can see? Their defense will be simple imho (not that they’re one of the parties involved other than “witness”), and say it was the race directors decision. What do they have to justify?

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 048.12.pdf

Race Director’s Evidence
The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that
would “interfere” in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one
that applied in this case.
The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible
it was highly desirable for the race to end in a “green” condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car).

simple question, was carlos who was in P3 at the time of the restart a leader yes or no?

[Roo]

It might prove true, it might not.

Be interesting to see if it goes to court and then legal boffins far deeper into the matter will be able to duke it out. Fair to say, us making these “cast iron” judgements from behind a telly, is little more than bluster/opinion

How do you think RB could defend the rules, for that one decision, to ensure the title is awarded to them?

They don’t have to as far as I can see? Their defense will be simple imho (not that they’re one of the parties involved other than “witness”), and say it was the race directors decision. What do they have to justify?

Excellent; then awarding the title to MB seems the path of least resistance and correct for the rules.

[jz11]

Another thing, why were the cars behind Max not allowed to pass so that Carlos Sainz can have a go at Max if he wanted to. Max appears to be the only guy that benefited from the "selective rule application" which clearly breaks the fairness of the sport.

Do you seriously suggest that at that point Carlos would even think of doing anything to Max in regards to challenging his position? Or Lewis, had their positions been reversed

[Starkblood80]

It might prove true, it might not.

Be interesting to see if it goes to court and then legal boffins far deeper into the matter will be able to duke it out. Fair to say, us making these “cast iron” judgements from behind a telly, is little more than bluster/opinion

How do you think RB could defend the rules, for that one decision, to ensure the title is awarded to them?

They don’t have to as far as I can see? Their defense will be simple imho (not that they’re one of the parties involved other than “witness”), and say it was the race directors decision. What do they have to justify?

Would they have to justify interfering with the RD’s decision.
I mean Masi did change his decision after being lobbied by Redbull.