Ferrari team order at Germany - What should be the penalty?

[tarzoon]

I can't understand this... why a penalty if the rules are as transparent as a concrete wall? Can you prove that this was not a way of avoiding the kind of silly accident that happened between Webber and Vettel? Like that we could all read it on the news and come over to chop their genitalia off.

As far as I see it, team orders still pay off. If I were a team principal running a multi-million business, I couldn't say I would have not done the same thing. All the rest is a matter of big egos.

[shamikaze]

I don't agree with andrew regarding Ferrari getting away penalty free due to precedents of non action by the FiA. The FiA is not a prosecution service and if there is no public scandal there is often no action on dodgy practices. In this case it got highly public and at least one team has declared they would would consider a complaint if the FiA did not prosecute.

I agree with andrews regarding the role of Massa and Smedley. They were not working in the interest of Ferrari but tried to use public pressure against Ferrari using team orders IMO.

Regarding the interests of Ferrari and Ecclestone we have a published opinion by Ecclestone that he wants to abolish the team order ban which is a clear indication that he will support Ferrari in the disciplinary hearing. He obviously has an interest to promote a rift between FOTA members like Red Bull and Ferrari to profit in the 2013 CA talks from a team division. So if the WMSC finds against Ferrari I expect him to publish a minority opinion saying they should not have been punished.

I fully agree with WhiteBlue on this one.
It has been clear for many moon's that B.E. will support Ferrari (in a similar fashion with the Italian bloke ban). I'm pretty sure he's street-wise and business-smart enough to no bite the hand that feeds helps him get his millions and also devide the teams to benefit from it for the 2013 Concorde Agreement negotiations.

I also belief that Massa and Smedley intentionally screwed up their communication because they felt they got the wrong end of the deal in being asked to let Alonso pass (junior in the team compared to Massa). Like mentioned here many times, there are mulitple ways this could have been dealt with without anyone noticing (or hardly), but instead they wanted to make it obvious to the world that Massa was not lacking race-pace, but is being told to back-off. Especially keeping Alonso's earlier radio-communication ("guys, this is ridiculous")in the back of the mind. Massa and Smedley could have done this running high on emotions instead of running high on intelligence.

[747heavy]

Tarzoon, you made an very interesting point. I will strech it a bit to the extreme, because it would make a very interesting defense strategy. IMHO

>>> Team orders must be allowed for safety reasons <<< - how good a argument is that against the FIA ?

I know, sounds outlandish, but mind about it for a second.

Tarzoon, please I don´t make fun of you. I agree 100% with what you say and have the same opinion regards TO as you have.

[autogyro]

No matter what anybody says within f1 or the organising bodies, obvious team orders are seen by the viewing public as 'fixing the sport'.
Making it legal will damage F1 for the sake of commercial reasons.

[tarzoon]

>>> Team orders must be allowed for safety reasons <<< - how good a argument is that against the FIA ?

Thinking of it, that is a brilliant excuse to any "funny" order coming from the pits.

obvious team orders are seen by the viewing public as 'fixing the sport'.
Making it legal will damage F1 for the sake of commercial reasons.

Sure it is! And it happens everywhere. We are used to seeing F1 as an individual sport, why can't we see it as a duo-sport? If that's a way forward, let's drop the prejudice and move on to a faster and more competitive race series. Just make them fair and square for everyone.

I'm here trying to think what's worse:
- Massa slowing down to let Alonso pass
- Seeing a Trulli-style conga line
- Bernie's "cut-through" idea
- Mike Coughlan's report
- Piquet's spin in Singapore

[jon-mullen]

Let's add to your list:

- the Vettel-Webber collision
- the Schumi-Rosberg battle over how pointy the car is
- the Alonso-Piquet, Hamilton-Kovalainen, Vettel-Webber new parts discrepencies
- Raikkonen's WDC-winning pass during Massa's casual pit stop

The teams will always find a way to favor one driver over another, sometimes intentionally, sometimes for lack of parts, sometimes it's just the way the timing/strategy works out.

[andrew]

To add, McLaren in Turkey (save fuel my backside!), and Vettels amazing loss of pace in Hungary and the massive gap hea created between Webber and himself also in Hungary all stunk of team orders.

[Miguel]

The FiA is not a prosecution service and if there is no public scandal there is often no action on dodgy practices. In this case it got highly public and at least one team has declared they would would consider a complaint if the FiA did not prosecute.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. If the FIA wouldn't have done anything if the press hadn't complained, does this mean that it's the press the ones that decide who gets penalties and why? I mean, it's not that I agree with many FIA decisions, but surely that's miles better than deciding the penalties based on which press is louder and more influential.

In any case, I must admit I like Tarzoon's line of defense. Ferrari obviously did it for safety reasons. After the Vettel-Webber crash, a couple of close encounters between Massa and Alonso plus the near miss both had in that race, Ferrari decided to let the faster driver in that day win the race without risking a crash. They so obviously did it because they didn't want to ruin Vettel's or Hamilton's race with a puncture caused by sparse carbon fiber. Obviously. It was a coincidence that the driver that won happened to be the best place in the championship.

EDIT: Added a previous phrase from Whiteblue's post for clarity's sake.

[segedunum]

If it's a team sport then scrap the driver's championship. Easy.

[WhiteBlue]

In this case it got highly public and at least one team has declared they would would consider a complaint if the FiA did not prosecute.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. If the FIA wouldn't have done anything if the press hadn't complained, does this mean that it's the press the ones that decide who gets penalties and why? I mean, it's not that I agree with many FIA decisions, but surely that's miles better than deciding the penalties based on which press is louder and more influential.

You obviously do not understand correctly. The FiA does not have a prosecution service that investigates all racing events. The sport justice system is mainly built on competitors coming forward when they feel disadvantaged and on reacting to things that are so blatantly obvious that the media strongly react to them. I feel that nothing is wrong with that. What would you say if the FiA builds something like the US homeland security service and charges millions in fees to the competitors for a questionable service?

[Miguel]

It appeared to me you said the FIA only investigated due to the high publicity given by the press. I drew that from your previous phrase in the post I quoted (which I should have included, and will edit it):

"The FiA is not a prosecution service and if there is no public scandal there is often no action on dodgy practices.

By the way, "you obviously don't understand this" is an inflammatory way to start a post from my point of view. Anyway, settled... as long as the FIA doesn't turn into another DoHS.

[WhiteBlue]

By the way, "you obviously don't understand this" is an inflammatory way to start a post from my point of view.

I apologize if my opening was too controversial. I was reacting to your rhetorical technique. Paraphrasing irritates me and usually isn't helping with a debate. I kind of threw that back at you. I agree that it was not helpful to the exchange.

[WhiteBlue]

An interesting interview was published by F1

Q: What do you make of the rivalry between the Red Bull drivers. In the end could it cost them the title?
Niki Lauda: You have two models of how to race in Formula One as a team. If you approach it politically then you are in the Ferrari mould. Or you try to give both your drivers equal opportunities and the fans an exciting sport, as Red Bull are doing in letting their drivers compete with each other. That is what makes this sport a crowd puller because they see the best guys in the best cars racing each other with a ‘may the best man win’ philosophy - and not mocking the fans with a collusive result. But I am aware that this is a topic where opinions differ.

Q: So is Fernando Alonso following in Michael Schumacher’s footsteps and taking a tight grip on Ferrari?
Niki Lauda: What they did in Hockenheim was against all rules. Either the rules are changed or everybody observes them. What they’ve done is wrong and they got an immediate punishment - and they will get a pasting from the (FIA) World (Motor Sport) Council, that is for sure. And that has nothing to do with Alonso. He’s no Schumacher.

One should not forget the the stewards already found Ferrari guilty of breaking article 39.1 of the Sporting Regulations which forbid team orders that influence the outcome of the race. They were also found guilty of bringing the sport into disrepute according to article 151c of the International Sporting Code. Ferrari have not protested this verdict presumably to avoid a hearing by the International Court of Appeal which is a far less political body than the WMSC.

I personally agree with Lauda that the FiA MSC cannot avoid further punishment for Ferrari and must take away the illegally gained points from Alonso to rectify the sporting situation.

[DaveKillens]

No matter what anybody says within f1 or the organising bodies, obvious team orders are seen by the viewing public as 'fixing the sport'.
Making it legal will damage F1 for the sake of commercial reasons.

That's my belief too.

Everyone practices team orders, that I am certain. Personally I detest it, but it's just the way things are done down in the pits.

Although technically it would be difficult to prove it under the rules of a court of law, the overwhelming public perception is that Alonso's pass was deliberate.

Ferrari blatantly engineered a change in position in direct contravention of specific regulations banning such actions. And for that they will be punished.

But the hearing is coming up soon. The sticky part is that Monza isn't that far off, and it would be unthinkable for Ferrari to miss that event because they were suspended in the same manner as BAR in 2005. So any form of suspension just won't happen. Monetary fine? Ferrari will write it off as a necessary expense and go on. If you take away driver points that's unfair to the drivers. So what's left, the team is excluded from the Manufacturer's title? Ouch.

[xpensive]

Team orders, including number one and two drivers, has been around forever.

Schumacher and Irvine/Barichello, Prost and Hill, Scheckter and Villeneuve, Andretti and Peterson, Stewart and Cevert, just to name a few. I think equal terms is the anomaly here, where it more often than not seems to end in tears, think Fittipaldi and Peterson, Jones and Reutemann, Piquet and Mansell, Prost and Senna?

Now Vettel and Webber seems to go the same way.