Belgium 2008 GP - Court of Appeal Thread

[Scotracer]

W.T.F

[Nikko2]

"27.The Court, in a judgment of 12 October 2007 rendered in the Toro Rosso case
concerning the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix (driver Vitantonio Liuzzi), concluded,
in similar circumstances, that the appeal against a decision to impose a 25-
second penalty was admissible. However, none of the parties concerned had
raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case, the FIA for its part leaving
the matter to the sovereign appreciation of the Court. Therefore, the Court was
able, in the conclusion of its decision, to declare the appeal admissible, but it did
not give reasons for its decision on the issue, as the question was not debated.
Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to
this question and does not bind the Court in the present case."

The above text from the ruling is the crux of it all. In particular
"However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case"

I think Jackie Stewart summed it up nicely with the words the effect of the FIA are not in the habit of losing appeals against itself.

[woohoo]

This is a black day for the sport. The behavior of the race director and the stewards was very dubious. The court should have looked into this and made an exception.

shame on:

Mr Alan DONNELLY (Stewards Advisor)
Mr Charlie WHITING (Race Director)
Mr Philippe NARMINO (Presiding Judge Monaco)
Mr Xavier CONESA (Judge Spain)
Mr Harry DUIJM (Judge Netherlands)
Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Judge Switzerland)
Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Judge Austria)

for letting this happen. you are a disgrace for F1!!

"This is the worst judgement in the history of F1. It's absolutely unacceptable when three (stewards) influence the championship like this."

We can now include the names of the 7 men above.

Oh boo hoo!
I beleive you are one of those people who like the sport to be fair. But if its not going your way, its not fair.
Hammilton made an illegal pass, got penalized.
McLaren tried to appeal something that could not be appealed, and were pretty much "kicked out"

End of story, now get on with it, and hope your man wins in a clean fashion, or he might have to lose again.

[woohoo]

I like this bit

The Court of appeal pointed to paragraph 5 of article 152 of the International Sporting Code which reads as follows:

"Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal."

Or in English if we decide on a penalty they is *uck all u can do. If this is the case why did it even get this far?

It all seems a little dodgy to me

But as had been already said its done, move on.

Just hope if massa wins this year that he does not win by 1 or 2 points or there could be a storm.

Dodgy ?
Ever see a soccer match ?
Those cards that the men in black shirts and shorts give to the players, do you think they are debatable ???

[axle]

Dodgy ?
Ever see a soccer match ?
Those cards that the men in black shirts and shorts give to the players, do you think they are debatable ???

Those refs are trained professionals something the FIA/F1 lacks.

[shir0]

McLaren and Hamilton decided to push the rules to limit...

and this is the result...the rules push back.

It's either this result (the ruling of the ICA) was a technical consequence of the decision to apply the drive-through penalty by the Belgian Grand Prix stewards or it as was a well calculated script from the start (or the end of the Belgian GP, depending on how you want to view it ).


CHAPTER XI

PENALTIES

152. Penalties

...yada yada yada...Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal.

...granted that the rules on which the stewards based their decision, along with how Hamilton/McLaren supposedly had followed the same rules, were the ones in question...there still remains that rule I quoted above which, in this case, renders the stewards (and as a consequence, their decision) infallible.


the only thing left to do now is either:

a) for McLaren to dominate the last four races and wipe the grin off the ICA judges faces

-or-

b) for Ferrari to dominate the last four races and lessen the impact of a questionable championship win (both in the WDC and WCC)

[WhiteBlue]

This is a black day for the sport. The behavior of the race director and the stewards was very dubious. The court should have looked into this and made an exception.

shame on:

Mr Alan DONNELLY (Stewards Advisor)
Mr Charlie WHITING (Race Director)
Mr Philippe NARMINO (Presiding Judge Monaco)
Mr Xavier CONESA (Judge Spain)
Mr Harry DUIJM (Judge Netherlands)
Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Judge Switzerland)
Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Judge Austria)

for letting this happen. you are a disgrace for F1!!

"This is the worst judgement in the history of F1. It's absolutely unacceptable when three (stewards) influence the championship like this."

We can now include the names of the 7 men above.

Oh boo hoo!
I beleive you are one of those people who like the sport to be fair. But if its not going your way, its not fair.
Hammilton made an illegal pass, got penalized.
McLaren tried to appeal something that could not be appealed, and were pretty much "kicked out"

End of story, now get on with it, and hope your man wins in a clean fashion, or he might have to lose again.

I do not have a man. And I'm definetely not a McLaren fan. Quite the opposite. I usually support Ferrari and Massa or Kimi. The point is that Hamilton did not make an illegal pass. The stewards dreamed up an issue to manipulate the championship. And that is really bad news for the sport I like and have followed for 20 years.

[mcdenife]

Those cards that the men in black shirts and shorts give to the players, do you think they are debatable ???

Yes, if they gave them out retrospectively, ie after the game. But a more appropriate analogy is the refs awarding a goal just to negate whatever advantage the winning team may or may not have had as a result of their not awarding a penalty during the game. I think it says a lot, the devious misinformation tactics of the FIA in order to deem the appeal as inadmissible.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, I bet some people here thinks that the code was applied as it should. We can only hope that it sends the correct message to drivers and teams: stewards are the referees, their word is final. IMHO, sportmanship has to be nurtured if we want to see it on the track. Taking the sporting code rules to the edge is not tolerated by this group of stewards, as Alonso remarked.

Anyway, after translating some documents for my local federation on the thorny issue of Mosleygate, Deschaux have my (quite humble) support. I quote him:

French federation (FFSA) president Nicolas Deschaux also voted against Mosley. "I have moral standards," said Deschaux.

In this "neo-modern" world, that's something I truly appreciate. I certainly value more hard-to-take referee decisions than dubious victories, but maybe I'm in a minority.

For McLaren die-hards, I have only words of hope and good wishes: Hamilton can prove now what he's made of, against the widely despised Massa. Don't worry, guys, it seems this is his year. Besides, Hamilton still have time (and not too many failures until now) to ponder if the way in which you fight is as important as the outcome, as Stirling Moss once said.

Talking about the highly respected Moss, I cannot avoid to write a somehow gratuitous thought, in no way trying to upset Hamilton's fans, but trying (desperately! ) to make people see things under a different light:

Would Sir Moss have insisted on appealing while claiming he was the best driver in the world? Of course, you know the answer.

For a guy in Hamilton's position, that is, leading the championship, in the best car and without any competition in his own team, showing greatness of soul should be relatively easy. I only hope his fans ponder how to take that attitude: I can assure you it makes victory one thousand times sweeter, and, if you're defeated, then defeat does not matter. Besides, I bet he's going to be Sir Lewis Hamilton. Perhaps he should start having the modesty you associate with that kind of titles (not that I'm monarchist in any way!).

On a more technical issue, macdenife, I've been a referee at soccer matches. You can give red cards after the game, and, reasonable exceptions made (mainly, mistaken identity), they are as solid as the ones you exhibit during the game. You know I've pushed one thousand times for a College of Arbiters, and the permanent stewards we have this year are a first step in that direction. Mobbing the referees is disgusting (and truly terrifying for the referees, if I may add) and that is what makes a joke of any sport. It has taken a generation to educate soccer players in that respect, I hope F1 reaches that stage sooner.

[shir0]

...The point is that Hamilton did not make an illegal pass.

He did...at least that what the stewards have decided... - shir0

The stewards dreamed up an issue to manipulate the championship.

ehem...

2008 F1 SPORTING REGULATIONS
16) INCIDENTS
16.2 a) It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide, upon a report or a request by the race director,
if a driver or drivers involved in an incident shall be penalised.

I'll grant you that there is a qualifying phrase stating that the race director has to issue a report OR a request. Even if a request from the race director was wanting, the stewards could have easily asked for a report (or an opinion) from the race director if Hamilton should be penalized or not.

STILL, the race director DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION to impose or not to impose any penalty. He can only make a report or request to the stewards. That discretion remains at the hands of the stewards. So the penalty, dreamt or not, is still legal based on the rules of the sport which you ..."like and have followed for 20 years."
- shir0


...my point is, let's forget about this (at least until the same thing happens again) and just watch the last four races, shall we?

[Scotracer]

I just told my parents the result and they are as appalled as most of us are. Dark, dark day for Formula 1.

[modbaraban]

Dark, dark day for Formula 1.

You must be kidding.

It was so clear that McLewis didn't stand a chance.

[myurr]

I really think that this was the worst possible outcome for the sport as it leaves all the questions about whether the decision was right or wrong up in the air, whilst simultaneously damaging the FIAs reputation for fairness even further.

Why do I say that? Well were the FIA confident in their decision and their impartiality they would not have sought to expel the case on technical grounds - they would instead have allowed the court to look at the evidence as presented by McLaren, Ferrari and the stewards and to reach the same decision as the stewards.

They also would not have misrepresented people and lied, as they have now been accused of doing, in an attempt to discredit some of McLaren's evidence.

Can I also add my voice to those shouting "what the hell is Ferrari's lawyer doing there examining witnesses!?" This is supposed to be a sporting dispute between McLaren and the FIA, with Ferrari only there as witnesses with relevant information.

To (ab)use the popular football analogy this is the equivalent of retrospectively awarding a goal to team Ferrari two hours after the match had ended, handing them victory, and then claiming that the decision can't be questioned because they handed out an in match based penalty (they would have awarded a penalty kick but as the match was already over they gave a goal instead).

Whatever their motivations or whether their interpretation and implementation of the rules is right or wrong (I believe they are wrong), their conduct and manipulation still stinks to high heaven. And unfortunately for the sport I think that the majority of fans, Ferrari supporters included, have yet another bad taste in their mouths regarding yet another championship.

Ps. To those rules lawyers stating that it's fact that Hamilton broke the rules, blah blah blah - it's fact that Massa broke the rules in Valencia (the FIA found him guilty of an unsafe pit release) and those same rules also state that it's both the drivers responsibility and that the punishment is the same as that for Hamiltons alleged offense (drive through or 25s penalty or 10 grid demotion at next race depending on when the offense occurred). Yet in that case he was just given a fine - I don't know how you can claim any moral authority for any other punishment being given to Hamilton. Or is that part of the rule book wrong and therefore shouldn't apply?

[shir0]

Read the rest of the sentence that you had underlined. Mclaren got clarification from the race director TWICE during the race and under his authority they kept the position...

Then if McLaren's basis for lodging their appeal is what you said...that they got clarification from the race director TWICE during the race and under his authority they kept the position...then they still are utterly wrong. Like the same rule you referred to says, the race director has no authority to impose or not to impose a penalty. That authority remains with the stewards.

Authority of a race director only encompasses the following:
a) the control of practice and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the
making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or
Sporting Regulations ;
b) the stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations ;
c) the stopping of practice or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he
deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out ;
d) the starting procedure ;
e) the use of the safety car.

Anything other than what's listed above, he does not have the authority.

The race director can, however, issue "instructions to competitors by means of special circulars in accordance with the Code." As these as circulars have to be clearly spelled out, in the case of Spa, it wasn't. In the case of the suceeding race in Monza, it was speeled out and the correct procedure for these special instructions was undertaken by distributing the same circular/s to ALL competitors.

Ps. To those rules lawyers stating that it's fact that Hamilton broke the rules, blah blah blah - it's fact that Massa broke the rules in Valencia (the FIA found him guilty of an unsafe pit release) and those same rules also state that it's both the drivers responsibility and that the punishment is the same as that for Hamiltons alleged offense (drive through or 25s penalty or 10 grid demotion at next race depending on when the offense occurred). Yet in that case he was just given a fine - I don't know how you can claim any moral authority for any other punishment being given to Hamilton. Or is that part of the rule book wrong and therefore shouldn't apply?

Clearly, myurr, you're referring to me. No problem. Is this the rule you're referring to?

23) PIT LANE
i) It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so.

The 2008 F1 Sporting Regulations state that the responsibility, in that case, lies with the COMPETITOR. If you read the entire Regulations as published, it clearly differentiates DRIVERS from COMPETITORS. How can the stewards give the "competitor" a drive-through penalty ? A fine was instead the proper penalty to a competitor.

Now if you ask me why in GP2 that the same infraction was metted with a drive-through penalty, I cannot give you a fact-based answer to that as I have not seen it at all, to be honest. Even so, if you would allow me to give my opinion on the matter, I would say that the stewards are THE stewards, the stewards have the sole discretion in handing out penalties and again, DRIVE THROUGH PENALTIES ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO APPEAL, even if the stewards were wrong.

Oh, and BTW, are the GP2 Sporting Regulations EXACTLY the same with the F1 Sporting Regulations? I have no idea...but I'm just speculating that could be the reason for the difference in penalties. hmmm....

[Sawtooth-spike]

Woohoo i assume ur trying to Bate people as i think my Post was totaly fair.

I accept the ruling, its fine, thats what they say so thats what has to be. All i was saying is that, that bit of the rules seems a little dodgy cus it allows them a get out clause from having to hold themself accountable.

Dark day for f1? Na, Its bringing light to the dark places that nobody wants to see.