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

[DChemTech]

As I anticipated though, a lot of your posting is derived out of "Max doesn't have an asterisk on his Championship triumph. The Championship is decided throughout the season. Hamilton..."

what has any of that got to do with what went wrong in the part of Masi?

I don't see where Hamilton's championship would come with a Huge Asterisk. A smaller one than Max's I would say. About as small as Nico Rosbergs in 2016?? and arguably that doesn't have an asterisk.

If you crash, or get crashed into, (not deliberately at least) or your engine fails.. or something fails.. that's motorsports. that is what you sign up for.

In no sport, is rule breaking and rule officiating failures ever part of the game. That is an asterisk. So is Spa. Suddenly we want to justify this result because one driver had a bit more bad luck on track? even though you can argue he had plenty luck off track with the rules from Masi, and the change of regulations that season which brought the better performance to his car.

too many drivers have lost titles they couldve/shouldve won but took a loss. We aren't going to start making dodgy results 'okay' on the basis of how much bad luck you had before. In that case, we should refuse to respect a number of title wins from other drivers... jut no.

Not saying that Max doesn't have an asterisk. Saying it would be there regardless of who won. And sure, you see it as a smaller one, because you care less about mid-season rule changes and well, they benefitted your team. So I regard those differently, because my opinion on both those grounds is different. And sure, the perception with the larger public may be different because the last race incident was very visible, while the rule changes were more subtle (and the impact hard to quantify). Doesn't mean it wasn't there.

And once again, I am not trying to make dodgy results ok. I never said they were ok. I've been clear that I think Hamilton deserved to win the race, and Verstappen deserved to win the championship overall considering all controversial FIA decisions. That doesn't mean that they literally cancel eachother out; every dodgy decision in itself is one too many.

But all of this is a detour from what we were actually discussing, which is the role of Wheatley. And there my point has been made. You can't blame Wheatley for making suggestions on the radio, because everyone was doing it. The principle of lobbying is problematic, not a single occasion based on the perceived outcome. You also cannot blame Wheatley for Masi making a wrong decision. The decision was wrong because it was against the rulebook, regardless of whether it was or was not influenced by what Masi was saying, and regardless of whether he even was saying anything.

[DChemTech]

My issue here is that RB's lobbying directly resulted in Masi changing his decision regarding letting the lapped cars through, where as I don't think I have ever seen a referee in football change their decision based on players/coaches on field protests.
It was this indecision on masi's part which meant long established SC rules had to be, shall we say, manipulated.
Had Masi stuck to his original decision I'm not sure any camp could then be upset that regulations were not correctly followed.

The key part is think. We never know what Masi would have done were it not for RB on the radio. We never know how a soccer ref would act were it not for the players/coaches talking.

As said, the whole practice of lobbying is condemnable, it's not only condemnable when the outcome is seemingly successful (i.e. the decision correlates with what was asked for, because as mentioned, the ref may just as well have taken that decision otherwise). The decision by Masi in this case was wrong, but that was because it was against the rules in and of itself. It was wrong regardless of who was on the radio. Wheatley being suggestive on the radio should have been illegal, just as other lobbying instances should have been. It is undesirable regardless of the outcome.

As mentioned plentily, I don't think you can be angry at Wheatley for making suggestive statements, as all the teams were doing that. Given the possibilities, I would be surprised if he would not be on the radio.

And had Masi made the correct call in this case, well, then as I mentioned before there were plenty of other moments to be upset about throughout the season, and a remember, the championship is decided throughout the course of a season, not a single race. Hamilton's championship in that case would just as well have come with a huge asterisk.

Would Masi have had reason to change his decision without outside influence considering he had to go against well understood regulations in order to let those cars through?
In football usually a referee makes a decision at which point the players will lobby him, and rarely does he change his mind. I don't recall any incident where players lobbying has caused a referee to make a decision in their favour, although I could be wrong.

I'm not sure had Hamilton won his WDC would have come with an asterisk but the rest of your post I fully agree with

That's not the point. It doesn't matter if something rarely or frequently happens, it's the principle that matters. Either lobbying is allowed (and it may or may not alter the outcome), or it is not. It's.. odd, not to mention impossible, to only ban lobbying if it changes the outcome. And if it's allowed, one can't blame a player/coach for trying.

And besides that, it's still the decision of the referee, regardless of what players are saying. If someone says "hm, those cookies look epic, it would be great if you could get me one", and you decide to steal a cookie, you are at fault. Not the one asking for the cookie.

[morefirejules08]

The key part is think. We never know what Masi would have done were it not for RB on the radio. We never know how a soccer ref would act were it not for the players/coaches talking.

As said, the whole practice of lobbying is condemnable, it's not only condemnable when the outcome is seemingly successful (i.e. the decision correlates with what was asked for, because as mentioned, the ref may just as well have taken that decision otherwise). The decision by Masi in this case was wrong, but that was because it was against the rules in and of itself. It was wrong regardless of who was on the radio. Wheatley being suggestive on the radio should have been illegal, just as other lobbying instances should have been. It is undesirable regardless of the outcome.

As mentioned plentily, I don't think you can be angry at Wheatley for making suggestive statements, as all the teams were doing that. Given the possibilities, I would be surprised if he would not be on the radio.

And had Masi made the correct call in this case, well, then as I mentioned before there were plenty of other moments to be upset about throughout the season, and a remember, the championship is decided throughout the course of a season, not a single race. Hamilton's championship in that case would just as well have come with a huge asterisk.

Would Masi have had reason to change his decision without outside influence considering he had to go against well understood regulations in order to let those cars through?
In football usually a referee makes a decision at which point the players will lobby him, and rarely does he change his mind. I don't recall any incident where players lobbying has caused a referee to make a decision in their favour, although I could be wrong.

I'm not sure had Hamilton won his WDC would have come with an asterisk but the rest of your post I fully agree with

That's not the point. It doesn't matter if something rarely or frequently happens, it's the principle that matters. Either lobbying is allowed (and it may or may not alter the outcome), or it is not. It's.. odd, not to mention impossible, to only ban lobbying if it changes the outcome. And if it's allowed, one can't blame a player/coach for trying.

And besides that, it's still the decision of the referee, regardless of what players are saying. If someone says "hm, those cookies look epic, it would be great if you could get me one", and you decide to steal a cookie, you are at fault. Not the one asking for the cookie.

fair point

[Sieper]

Do we think that the radio lobbying might still have consequences? Toto asked for “please Michael no safety car” risks to be taken with the lives of the stewards and drivers. That goes a bit further than lobbying alone imho.

[nzjrs]

Yeah, best outcome from all this would be no more radio lobbying with Masi getting an assistant to put all the team principles on hold, no more broadcasting of these radio messages, and something like the Nascar rule to prevent races finishing under SC - hopefully red flag if SC in the last X% of the GP.

[DChemTech]

Do we think that the radio lobbying might still have consequences? Toto asked for “please Michael no safety car” risks to be taken with the lives of the stewards and drivers. That goes a bit further than lobbying alone imho.

There could be consequences if rash decisions are taken, even though as noted before, the responsibility does lie with the race director.

There are also reasons to keep a two-way communication channel between the RD and teams open. For example, when RB was informing that the tire explosion in Baku came without warning, that was useful information for the RD to have. The teams should still be able to inform, but should refrain from influencing. How that may work in practice is open for debate in my view; one could look at soccer where coaches are sent away for the match if they try to influence excessively. Something likewise may be opted for.

[NathanOlder]

On the toto quote on no safety car, I'm surprised we didn't hear anything from Wheatley at the same time, as I'm certain they would have been on the radio mentioning how dangerous a car there is and a full SC was required.

[NathanOlder]

Yeah, best outcome from all this would be no more radio lobbying with Masi getting an assistant to put all the team principles on hold, no more broadcasting of these radio messages, and something like the Nascar rule to prevent races finishing under SC - hopefully red flag if SC in the last X% of the GP.

I personally dont really see the issue finishing under SC, its just part of the game. Has it ever really been an issue?

[dans79]

Yeah, best outcome from all this would be no more radio lobbying with Masi getting an assistant to put all the team principles on hold, no more broadcasting of these radio messages, and something like the Nascar rule to prevent races finishing under SC - hopefully red flag if SC in the last X% of the GP.

They don't need a special rule for red flags, because if memory serves The race director can already call one whenever he wants.

[Sieper]

On the toto quote on no safety car, I'm surprised we didn't hear anything from Wheatley at the same time, as I'm certain they would have been on the radio mentioning how dangerous a car there is and a full SC was required.

Imho Wheatley has been more restrained than Toto when getting on the radio. Lobbying is lobbying but especially Toto at times seemed to just talk to his subordinate. That is not what the RD is, they have a very clear, and tough, task to fulfill.

Likely next year no more lobbying and I don’t think we will be off any worse. Let the stewards and RD decide. It is tough enough as it stands.

[Big Tea]

Yeah, best outcome from all this would be no more radio lobbying with Masi getting an assistant to put all the team principles on hold, no more broadcasting of these radio messages, and something like the Nascar rule to prevent races finishing under SC - hopefully red flag if SC in the last X% of the GP.

They don't need a special rule for red flags, because if memory serves The race director can already call one whenever he wants.

I know 'when ever he wants' seems to be, but surely it has to be- if 'this, this and/or this' happens it is, A compulsory or, B allowed/mandatory.
I know you did not literally mean 'when ever he wants' but it does seen to be taken the way the rule is written rather than menu options, which it should try to be.

(There always has to be a human override, but with the proviso an explanation is given.)

[SmallSoldier]

There will never be an asterisks next to Max's 2021 title ever because he did absolutely nothing wrong or illegal or questionable. Max made a clean pass and Hamilton failed to keep Max behind. Simple as that. Lewis and Bono knew what the situation was. It was a fitting end to a controversial season, where Max and RedBull Honda ended Lewis and Mercedes dominance. That is how it will be remembered!

By you… And that’s absolutely fine

[dans79]

Yeah, best outcome from all this would be no more radio lobbying with Masi getting an assistant to put all the team principles on hold, no more broadcasting of these radio messages, and something like the Nascar rule to prevent races finishing under SC - hopefully red flag if SC in the last X% of the GP.

They don't need a special rule for red flags, because if memory serves The race director can already call one whenever he wants.

I know 'when ever he wants' seems to be, but surely it has to be- if 'this, this and/or this' happens it is, A compulsory or, B allowed/mandatory.
I know you did not literally mean 'when ever he wants' but it does seen to be taken the way the rule is written rather than menu options, which it should try to be.

(There always has to be a human override, but with the proviso an explanation is given.)

Even if he had to give an explanation in abu dhabi, it would be very simple. Marshalls had to be on track, and do to the nature of the turn neither the marshals or the drivers can see the other until the they are very close.

Imo, he didn't throw a red flag, because that would have allowed everyone time to change their tires, and not made the "show" nearly as dramatic!

[morefirejules08]

On the toto quote on no safety car, I'm surprised we didn't hear anything from Wheatley at the same time, as I'm certain they would have been on the radio mentioning how dangerous a car there is and a full SC was required.

Imho Wheatley has been more restrained than Toto when getting on the radio. Lobbying is lobbying but especially Toto at times seemed to just talk to his subordinate. That is not what the RD is, they have a very clear, and tough, task to fulfill.

Likely next year no more lobbying and I don’t think we will be off any worse. Let the stewards and RD decide. It is tough enough as it stands.

Perhaps Wheatley was more restrained but it seemed RB were in contact with masi on a more regular basis than MB. I say "seemed" because i assume we are not privy to all the communications between teams and RD, only the juicy bits.

[DChemTech]

They don't need a special rule for red flags, because if memory serves The race director can already call one whenever he wants.

I know 'when ever he wants' seems to be, but surely it has to be- if 'this, this and/or this' happens it is, A compulsory or, B allowed/mandatory.
I know you did not literally mean 'when ever he wants' but it does seen to be taken the way the rule is written rather than menu options, which it should try to be.

(There always has to be a human override, but with the proviso an explanation is given.)

Even if he had to give an explanation in abu dhabi, it would be very simple. Marshalls had to be on track, and do to the nature of the turn neither the marshals or the drivers can see the other until the they are very close.

Imo, he didn't throw a red flag, because that would have allowed everyone time to change their tires, and not made the "show" nearly as dramatic!

Still, may be good to have a standard rule like 'no SC in the last X laps or Y% of the race' if they want to ensure a racing finish, and to ensure that teams know exactly what to expect without controversy.