2019 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal June 7-9

[Just_a_fan]

Changing the rule because it's deemed no longer fit for purpose is one thing. Choosing, on the fly, whether to apply a rule based on whether someone "deserves a bit of help" or whatever metric is chosen, is entirely ridiculous.

[Phil]

If the rule is poorly crafted

It's not poorly crafted. It's there for a reason and pretty on point. If we did not have this (and the associated) rule(s), imagine what other 'incidents' would go unpunished. It's in the nature of any sport to push the limits - that's why there need to be sensible rules - to keep all participants in check on what is allowed, what isn't and what kind of a competition you want to encourage.

[izzy]

But are you really saying they ought to tailor the penalties to give the best show?

No, but not to shoot the sport in the foot. It has been done in reverse with disrepute, so a little 'tweak' is not a huge negative game changer. I have to stress though that this has to be applied sensibly ( another page long article in its self, I know ) and not where there has been blatant danger and we, and the drivers, press etc have to realise the stewards have a difficult job and be prepared to cut them a little slack in the way Charley used his descresion to allow a marginal car to race today but fix it for next week.

(This is an undefendable position for me to take as there will be fans of both drivers and neutrals all having their own views.)

i reckon Bernie would be thinking how great it's been for the sport! He built f1 on controversy and drama

Personally I think with sport the rules are the whole point, that is the structure and if you can't win within that structure you mustn't be allowed to win. So with Seb, the rule says he has to rejoin safely and he didn't.

The skill in that motor race was not to let the car behind past, and he couldn't do it within the rules, he went off, so he mustn't win. Of course the 5s time penalty was a terrible way to do it, as we've said

[roon]

Changing the rule because it's deemed no longer fit for purpose is one thing. Choosing, on the fly, whether to apply a rule based on whether someone "deserves a bit of help" or whatever metric is chosen, is entirely ridiculous.

The former was what I was getting at.

If the rule is poorly crafted

It's not poorly crafted. It's there for a reason and pretty on point. If we did not have this (and the associated) rule(s), imagine what other 'incidents' would go unpunished. It's in the nature of any sport to push the limits - that's why there need to be sensible rules - to keep all participants in check on what is allowed, what isn't and what kind of a competition you want to encourage.

Not commenting on any specific rule. Hypothetically a rule could be poolry crafted and worth ignoring til amendment. Which is to say, Big Tea's premise is sound.

To comment on the specific rule Vettel fell afoul of: I think its the non-intentional aspect that irks people. Adding a penalty on top of an error made it seem harsh or unfair. There's the non-intentional side of the event (braking error, grass moment, uncontrolled/dangerous re-entry) and the intentional (changing car direction after regain control on the track).

Which part was penalized?

[Tommy Cookers]

.....Though, I find it incredibly hard to argue against their reasons for penalizing what essentially comes down to a black on white infringement. And I also disagree that the rules should be bent just because we wanted a different narrative. The rules are the rules, regardless who it affects and no matter if it influences a race win or a championship.

some started to take an interest in car racing with the career of Willie T Ribbs

isn't there now a whiff of humbug in the air ?
imagine if Vettel's and Hamilton's positions and actions by chance were transposed eg in the next race
the steward would take the race win from a man of Afro-Caribbean heritage and award it to a man of Caucasian heritage

as an example of a motor sport that hasn't had a dignity bypass ..... the Isle of Man T.T.
a time trial that can be won without the need to pass anyone - (and where passing can benefit both riders)
no radio

[Phil]

@roon,

I agree, although to be fair; should it matter if it was intentional? Most 'incidents' are unintentional, yet they still can incur a penalty. In other words, yes, Vettels 'dangerous' re-entry wasn't intentional, but if we stop penalizing such incidents, you are opening yourself having to prove intend which isn't always easy or possible.

On one hand, one can argue it was unfair that Vettel got penalized, but if he hadn't, couldn't one say it was unfair to Hamilton who did the job of successfully pressuring Vettel into making an error/mistake that led to him going completely off-track, but the resulted unintentional re-entry meant he had to take avoiding measures and nullified his legitimate passing opportunity?

PS: I believe the stewards report is floating somewhere around in this topic that states explicitly why Vettel was penalized and which rules from the sporting regulations he infringed (according to the stewards).

[izzy]

To comment on the specific rule Vettel fell afoul of: I think its the non-intentional aspect that irks people. Adding a penalty on top of an error made it seem harsh or unfair. There's the non-intentional side of the event (braking error, grass moment, uncontrolled/dangerous re-entry) and the intentional (changing car direction after regain control on the track).

Which part was penalized?

The competition is to be fastest going round the track. They're allowed to make a mistake and leave the track but then they mustn't gain an advantage and they have to rejoin safely. Also they're not allowed to force another car off the track

So Seb made the mistake, no problem, but then he tried not to lose from it by breaking rules. It seems crystal clear to me i don't know why it's such an issue, honestly

[siskue2005]

.....Though, I find it incredibly hard to argue against their reasons for penalizing what essentially comes down to a black on white infringement. And I also disagree that the rules should be bent just because we wanted a different narrative. The rules are the rules, regardless who it affects and no matter if it influences a race win or a championship.

some started to take an interest in car racing with the career of Willie T Ribbs

isn't there now a whiff of humbug in the air ?
imagine if Vettel's and Hamilton's positions and actions by chance were transposed eg in the next race
the steward would take the race win from a man of Afro-Caribbean heritage and award it to a man of Caucasian heritage

as an example of a motor sport that hasn't had a dignity bypass ..... the Isle of Man T.T.
a time trial that can be won without the need to pass anyone - (and where passing can benefit both riders)
no radio

havent they done this already in spa 2008??

[roon]

Well said, Phil, izzy, JaF.

Stewards report from formula1.com:

No / Driver: 5 - Sebastian Vettel

Competitor: Scuderia Ferrari

Time: 15:13

Session: Race

Fact: Car 5 left the track, re-joined unsafely and forced another car off track.

Offence: Involved in an incident as defined by Article 38.1 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.

Decision: 5 second time penalty (2 point awarded, 7 points in total for the 12 month period).

Reason: The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 9.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

[strad]

I have one question:
How was Seb to rejoin safely in your eyes? How was he to accomplish that? He was on grass where brakes were near useless and simultaneously experiencing oversteer.

[TAG]

I have one question:
How was Seb to rejoin safely in your eyes? How was he to accomplish that? He was on grass where brakes were near useless and simultaneously experiencing oversteer.

I have a question for you, have you read any of the previous posts detailing exactly how and why? It's all there, promise, you can find the exact reasons in excruciating details in about five minutes of reading and you don't even have to go back more than two or three pages even.

[Phil]

I have one question:
How was Seb to rejoin safely in your eyes? How was he to accomplish that? He was on grass where brakes were near useless and simultaneously experiencing oversteer.

I think it's a legit question and sometimes, you end up off the track and instinct takes over (IMO survival over "how do I keep on winning this race"). But to ask a question back; Should the fact that Vettel made a mistake immunize him in anyway of the potential consequences he is causing with it? Would that be fair towards the drivers he is racing for position?

IMO that's why him coming back on to the track, potentially out of control and unintentional, has, at least in my eyes, no bearing on the penalty. It's like someone locking up and wiping out other cars. Yes, it was unintentional, but a mistake was made and there was a consequence of that mistake. Making a mistake should not make you immune to penalties.

[NathanOlder]

I have one question:
How was Seb to rejoin safely in your eyes? How was he to accomplish that? He was on grass where brakes were near useless and simultaneously experiencing oversteer.

The same way Ricciardo rejoined safely in 2013 going off in the exact same place.

[Just_a_fan]

To comment on the specific rule Vettel fell afoul of: I think its the non-intentional aspect that irks people. Adding a penalty on top of an error made it seem harsh or unfair.

What if Vettel's mistake had mirrored Hamilton's from earlier in the weekend? Penalty on top of the error then would likely have been DNF. Harsh? Unfair?

There have been many on here, over the years, stating that drivers get away with mistakes too easily - many feel that coming off the track should result in a punishment e.g. a gravel trap. Had Vettel had to run through a gravel trap he'd have been "naturally penalised" and lost first place to Hamilton anyway.

As to what irks people, the irked people are either fans of the driver / team or people who felt that the race was ruined by the penalty. The reality is that if the penalty had been "natural" then the outcome would have been the same or worse. The "artificial" nature of the penalty didn't change the natural outcome of the race.

I think Vettel's tantrums on the radio and in the paddock blew the whole thing bigger than it really is. He has successfully deflected attention away from his own error and made the issue a stewarding / rules one.

[GrizzleBoy]

I have one question:
How was Seb to rejoin safely in your eyes? How was he to accomplish that? He was on grass where brakes were near useless and simultaneously experiencing oversteer.

By not stamping on the gas after already regaining control.

Leading to him spinning up his tyres and ending up turning his wheel to the right in the Acceleration zone of a left hand corner.

Causing him to be unnecessarily closer to the wall than was required if he didn't lose control spinning up his tyres.

Causing his reentry onto the track to lead to another car being blocked from proceeding to race as normal.

TL;DR:

By not panicking after he saw Lewis about to pass, stamping on the gas and ending up sideways across the track in front of incoming traffic.