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

[morefirejules08]

Why do you assume it was 'Masi's desperation for a an exciting final lap' ?? wasn't it Masi who said in Germany 2020 that he has to follow the rules that all lapped cars must unlap themselves.. and it was after the teams discussed avoiding races finishing behind safety cars that he heeded?

Again, I put it to you that it was undue lobbying from RBR that made him cave into making that decision. When he responded to Toto about it, he used JW's sentiments to justify what he had just done.

If you take the opinion that Masi's decision was purely of his own making, then that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

But I would say to you, that in the course of the FIA investigating Abu Dhabi, the first change they wanted to implement was banning this lobbying behaviour via communication channels no longer being allowed between the RD and the team personnel. For me, this clearly indicates that Masi and the FIA lay blame with lobbying Masi with undue pressure that played a significant role in his actions and decision making.

It is behind this that I hold a firm opinion for now that it is far from a given that Masi would've made the same decision if another team / driver was in RBR's position in that scenario. The key for me, was Jonathan Wheatley and Christian Horner's lobbying and successful manipulating.. and potentially bias in the way he responds to RBR.

I have said in a previous reply that I believe team lobbying was a contributing factor to Masi's decision, maybe even a major factor but I also don't minimise the other factors such as how few laps were left when Latifi crashed, the apparent agreement that races shouldn't finish under a SC, the fact it was the final race of the closest fought season for some time, the hype which surrounded the race in to the lead up etc ect.
Those and probably many more external pressures would have had a baring on his decision making not "only" team lobbying

[DChemTech]

Why do you assume it was 'Masi's desperation for an exciting final lap' ?? wasn't it Masi who said in Germany 2020 that he has to follow the rules that all lapped cars must unlap themselves.. and it was after the teams discussed avoiding races finishing behind safety cars that he heeded?

Again, I put it to you that it was undue lobbying from RBR that made him cave into making that decision. When he responded to Toto about it, he used JW's sentiments to justify what he had just done.

If you take the opinion that Masi's decision was purely of his own making, then that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

But I would say to you, that in the course of the FIA investigating Abu Dhabi, the first change they wanted to implement was banning this lobbying behaviour via communication channels no longer being allowed between the RD and the team personnel. For me, this clearly indicates that Masi and the FIA lay blame with lobbying Masi with undue pressure that played a significant role in his actions and decision making.

It is behind this that I hold a firm opinion for now that it is far from a given that Masi would've made the same decision if another team / driver was in RBR's position in that scenario. The key for me, was Jonathan Wheatley and Christian Horner's lobbying and successful manipulating.. and potentially bias in the way that he responds to RBR – in that he may respond and behave more tentatively towards them.

Really, how often does it need to be repeated. Wheatley did not ask Masi to let -some- cars pass. He suggested that given the circumstances, it was feasible to let lapped cars pass (as is normal) and proceed racing. What Masi did in practice was in no way suggested by Wheatley. Nor was this 'lobbying' any more outrageous than any of the other radio messages that we've heard in that respect throughout the season, including the 'no safety car please' by Mercedes in the same race. Yes, these kind of messages are undesirable and it's good they are banned. But that you are framing this as being manipulated by a single team is completely ridiculous.

And yes, I do expect that the assumption that if the positions were reversed, Masi would do the same completely holds. We've seen throughout the season the FIA is very sensitive to lobbying from Mercedes, in cases that I have more than exhaustively addressed here. No reason to think Masi would act any different here.

[AeroDynamic]

Why do you assume it was 'Masi's desperation for an exciting final lap' ?? wasn't it Masi who said in Germany 2020 that he has to follow the rules that all lapped cars must unlap themselves.. and it was after the teams discussed avoiding races finishing behind safety cars that he heeded?

Again, I put it to you that it was undue lobbying from RBR that made him cave into making that decision. When he responded to Toto about it, he used JW's sentiments to justify what he had just done.

If you take the opinion that Masi's decision was purely of his own making, then that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

But I would say to you, that in the course of the FIA investigating Abu Dhabi, the first change they wanted to implement was banning this lobbying behaviour via communication channels no longer being allowed between the RD and the team personnel. For me, this clearly indicates that Masi and the FIA lay blame with lobbying Masi with undue pressure that played a significant role in his actions and decision making.

It is behind this that I hold a firm opinion for now that it is far from a given that Masi would've made the same decision if another team / driver was in RBR's position in that scenario. The key for me, was Jonathan Wheatley and Christian Horner's lobbying and successful manipulating.. and potentially bias in the way that he responds to RBR – in that he may respond and behave more tentatively towards them.

Really, how often does it need to be repeated. Wheatley did not ask Masi to let -some- cars pass. He suggested that given the circumstances, it was feasible to let lapped cars pass (as is normal) and proceed racing. What Masi did in practice was in no way suggested by Wheatley. Nor was this 'lobbying' any more outrageous than any of the other radio messages that we've heard in that respect throughout the season, including the 'no safety car please' by Mercedes in the same race. Yes, these kind of messages are undesirable and it's good they are banned. But that you are framing this as being manipulated by a single team is completely ridiculous.

And yes, I do expect that the assumption that if the positions were reversed, Masi would do the same completely holds. We've seen throughout the season the FIA is very sensitive to lobbying from Mercedes, in cases that I have more than exhaustively addressed here. No reason to think Masi would act any different here.

A straw man argument. Where did I say that JW told Masi specifically to do that? I said they lobbied him. They did. What happened? he brought the safety car in before affording it to come into the pits a lap after, as per the regs. He also cherry picked which cars could unlap themselves, free styling the rules in a precarious fashion that has hurt the integrity of the sport and forced the FIA to rethink his position and the rules.

Wheatley was lobbying Masi to get a motor race on their hands. Horner was lobbying Masi that 'you only need 1 racing lap'.

This undue lobbying was key in pressuring Masi to act malleable in his decision making progress, and to act in a way that led him to overrule the regs in place for the sport.

So, in summary im going to repeat exactly what I had said originally: it was undue lobbying from RBR that made him cave into making that decision and Jonathan Wheatley was telling Masi what to do "You obviously don't need ..."

why does JW need to inform Masi what to do to get the race going? he's RD. it is lobbying. End of.

[NathanOlder]

Why do you assume it was 'Masi's desperation for an exciting final lap' ?? wasn't it Masi who said in Germany 2020 that he has to follow the rules that all lapped cars must unlap themselves.. and it was after the teams discussed avoiding races finishing behind safety cars that he heeded?

Again, I put it to you that it was undue lobbying from RBR that made him cave into making that decision. When he responded to Toto about it, he used JW's sentiments to justify what he had just done.

If you take the opinion that Masi's decision was purely of his own making, then that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

But I would say to you, that in the course of the FIA investigating Abu Dhabi, the first change they wanted to implement was banning this lobbying behaviour via communication channels no longer being allowed between the RD and the team personnel. For me, this clearly indicates that Masi and the FIA lay blame with lobbying Masi with undue pressure that played a significant role in his actions and decision making.

It is behind this that I hold a firm opinion for now that it is far from a given that Masi would've made the same decision if another team / driver was in RBR's position in that scenario. The key for me, was Jonathan Wheatley and Christian Horner's lobbying and successful manipulating.. and potentially bias in the way that he responds to RBR – in that he may respond and behave more tentatively towards them.

Really, how often does it need to be repeated. Wheatley did not ask Masi to let -some- cars pass. He suggested that given the circumstances, it was feasible to let lapped cars pass (as is normal) and proceed racing. What Masi did in practice was in no way suggested by Wheatley. Nor was this 'lobbying' any more outrageous than any of the other radio messages that we've heard in that respect throughout the season, including the 'no safety car please' by Mercedes in the same race. Yes, these kind of messages are undesirable and it's good they are banned. But that you are framing this as being manipulated by a single team is completely ridiculous.

And yes, I do expect that the assumption that if the positions were reversed, Masi would do the same completely holds. We've seen throughout the season the FIA is very sensitive to lobbying from Mercedes, in cases that I have more than exhaustively addressed here. No reason to think Masi would act any different here.

The FIA didn't seem to help Mercedes or Lewis on a fair few occasions last season. Surely when you see the incidents in Spa, Brazil, Abu Dhabi all helping RedBull. When over the season did the fia help out Mercedes like this? They were even letting RedBull change their rear wing every weekend to make sure it didn't fail.

[DChemTech]

Why do you assume it was 'Masi's desperation for an exciting final lap' ?? wasn't it Masi who said in Germany 2020 that he has to follow the rules that all lapped cars must unlap themselves.. and it was after the teams discussed avoiding races finishing behind safety cars that he heeded?

Again, I put it to you that it was undue lobbying from RBR that made him cave into making that decision. When he responded to Toto about it, he used JW's sentiments to justify what he had just done.

If you take the opinion that Masi's decision was purely of his own making, then that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

But I would say to you, that in the course of the FIA investigating Abu Dhabi, the first change they wanted to implement was banning this lobbying behaviour via communication channels no longer being allowed between the RD and the team personnel. For me, this clearly indicates that Masi and the FIA lay blame with lobbying Masi with undue pressure that played a significant role in his actions and decision making.

It is behind this that I hold a firm opinion for now that it is far from a given that Masi would've made the same decision if another team / driver was in RBR's position in that scenario. The key for me, was Jonathan Wheatley and Christian Horner's lobbying and successful manipulating.. and potentially bias in the way that he responds to RBR – in that he may respond and behave more tentatively towards them.

Really, how often does it need to be repeated. Wheatley did not ask Masi to let -some- cars pass. He suggested that given the circumstances, it was feasible to let lapped cars pass (as is normal) and proceed racing. What Masi did in practice was in no way suggested by Wheatley. Nor was this 'lobbying' any more outrageous than any of the other radio messages that we've heard in that respect throughout the season, including the 'no safety car please' by Mercedes in the same race. Yes, these kind of messages are undesirable and it's good they are banned. But that you are framing this as being manipulated by a single team is completely ridiculous.

And yes, I do expect that the assumption that if the positions were reversed, Masi would do the same completely holds. We've seen throughout the season the FIA is very sensitive to lobbying from Mercedes, in cases that I have more than exhaustively addressed here. No reason to think Masi would act any different here.

A straw man argument. Where did I say that JW told Masi specifically to do that? I said they lobbied him. They did. What happened? he brought the safety car in before affording it to come into the pits a lap after, as per the regs. He also cherry picked which cars could unlap themselves, free styling the rules in a precarious fashion that has hurt the integrity of the sport and forced the FIA to rethink his position and the rules.

Wheatley was lobbying Masi to get a motor race on their hands. Horner was lobbying Masi that 'you only need 1 racing lap'.

This undue lobbying was key in pressuring Masi to act malleable in his decision making progress, and to act in a way that led him to overrule the regs in place for the sport.

So, in summary im going to repeat exactly what I had said originally: it was undue lobbying from RBR that made him cave into making that decision and Jonathan Wheatley was telling Masi what to do "You obviously don't need ..."

why does JW need to inform Masi what he should do? he's RD. it is lobbying. End of.

Correlation is not causation. In soccer, coaches and players scream suggestions at the referee all the time. Sometimes the decision of the ref will be in agreement with what they were saying, sometimes it won't. That doesn't mean that if the ref acts in agreement with what a coach/player was asking for (whether the act is in line with the regulations or not), that is because of the coach or player asking.

Furthermore, the outrage in this particular case is because the referee let -some- cars pass, which is not according to the rules. Now, what if Masi would have let -all- cars pass (as is normal), and proceeded racing after. Would you still be as angry with the Wheatley/lobbying issue?

If not, then clearly you are blaming Wheatley for Masi just letting -some- cars pass. Which is simply not supported by the things Wheatley was saying, so as mentioned, you are mistaken in your framing.

If you would still be as angry, then the issue is with the notion of lobbying in itself. Which is fine to be angry with, but in that case, your anger should not concentrate on this situation alone. You are being inconsistent with not being equally pissed at Toto and co for similar lobbying attempts, whether they were successful or not.

[DChemTech]

The FIA didn't seem to help Mercedes or Lewis on a fair few occasions last season. Surely when you see the incidents in Spa, Brazil, Abu Dhabi all helping RedBull. When over the season did the fia help out Mercedes like this? They were even letting RedBull change their rear wing every weekend to make sure it didn't fail.

Please read back the whole discussion about mid-season regulation changes, made after lobbying pressure by Mercedes, favoring Mercedes, that has been held over the past 10 or so pages.

[Big Tea]

Why do you assume it was 'Masi's desperation for an exciting final lap' ?? wasn't it Masi who said in Germany 2020 that he has to follow the rules that all lapped cars must unlap themselves.. and it was after the teams discussed avoiding races finishing behind safety cars that he heeded?

Again, I put it to you that it was undue lobbying from RBR that made him cave into making that decision. When he responded to Toto about it, he used JW's sentiments to justify what he had just done.

If you take the opinion that Masi's decision was purely of his own making, then that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

But I would say to you, that in the course of the FIA investigating Abu Dhabi, the first change they wanted to implement was banning this lobbying behaviour via communication channels no longer being allowed between the RD and the team personnel. For me, this clearly indicates that Masi and the FIA lay blame with lobbying Masi with undue pressure that played a significant role in his actions and decision making.

It is behind this that I hold a firm opinion for now that it is far from a given that Masi would've made the same decision if another team / driver was in RBR's position in that scenario. The key for me, was Jonathan Wheatley and Christian Horner's lobbying and successful manipulating.. and potentially bias in the way that he responds to RBR – in that he may respond and behave more tentatively towards them.

Really, how often does it need to be repeated. Wheatley did not ask Masi to let -some- cars pass. He suggested that given the circumstances, it was feasible to let lapped cars pass (as is normal) and proceed racing. What Masi did in practice was in no way suggested by Wheatley. Nor was this 'lobbying' any more outrageous than any of the other radio messages that we've heard in that respect throughout the season, including the 'no safety car please' by Mercedes in the same race. Yes, these kind of messages are undesirable and it's good they are banned. But that you are framing this as being manipulated by a single team is completely ridiculous.

And yes, I do expect that the assumption that if the positions were reversed, Masi would do the same completely holds. We've seen throughout the season the FIA is very sensitive to lobbying from Mercedes, in cases that I have more than exhaustively addressed here. No reason to think Masi would act any different here.

The FIA didn't seem to help Mercedes or Lewis on a fair few occasions last season. Surely when you see the incidents in Spa, Brazil, Abu Dhabi all helping RedBull. When over the season did the fia help out Mercedes like this? They were even letting RedBull change their rear wing every weekend to make sure it didn't fail.

The question should be 'were the rules, as existing and as the teams expected them to be executed, followed on those occasions' ? It they were, Then that's fine, if they were not, then they also needs addressing.

[AeroDynamic]

Really, how often does it need to be repeated. Wheatley did not ask Masi to let -some- cars pass. He suggested that given the circumstances, it was feasible to let lapped cars pass (as is normal) and proceed racing. What Masi did in practice was in no way suggested by Wheatley. Nor was this 'lobbying' any more outrageous than any of the other radio messages that we've heard in that respect throughout the season, including the 'no safety car please' by Mercedes in the same race. Yes, these kind of messages are undesirable and it's good they are banned. But that you are framing this as being manipulated by a single team is completely ridiculous.

And yes, I do expect that the assumption that if the positions were reversed, Masi would do the same completely holds. We've seen throughout the season the FIA is very sensitive to lobbying from Mercedes, in cases that I have more than exhaustively addressed here. No reason to think Masi would act any different here.

A straw man argument. Where did I say that JW told Masi specifically to do that? I said they lobbied him. They did. What happened? he brought the safety car in before affording it to come into the pits a lap after, as per the regs. He also cherry picked which cars could unlap themselves, free styling the rules in a precarious fashion that has hurt the integrity of the sport and forced the FIA to rethink his position and the rules.

Wheatley was lobbying Masi to get a motor race on their hands. Horner was lobbying Masi that 'you only need 1 racing lap'.

This undue lobbying was key in pressuring Masi to act malleable in his decision making progress, and to act in a way that led him to overrule the regs in place for the sport.

So, in summary im going to repeat exactly what I had said originally: it was undue lobbying from RBR that made him cave into making that decision and Jonathan Wheatley was telling Masi what to do "You obviously don't need ..."

why does JW need to inform Masi what he should do? he's RD. it is lobbying. End of.

Correlation is not causation. In soccer, coaches and players scream suggestions at the referee all the time. Sometimes the decision of the ref will be in agreement with what they were saying, sometimes it won't. That doesn't mean that if the ref acts in agreement with what a coach/player was asking for (whether the act is in line with the regulations or not), that is because of the coach or player asking.

Furthermore, the outrage in this particular case is because the referee let -some- cars pass, which is not according to the rules. Now, what if Masi would have let -all- cars pass (as is normal), and proceeded racing after. Would you still be as angry with the Wheatley/lobbying issue?

If not, then clearly you are blaming Wheatley for Masi just letting -some- cars pass. Which is simply not supported by the things Wheatley was saying, so as mentioned, you are mistaken in your framing.

If you would still be as angry, then the issue is with the notion of lobbying in itself. Which is fine to be angry with, but in that case, your anger should not concentrate on this situation alone. You are being inconsistent with not being equally pissed at Toto and co for similar lobbying attempts, whether they were successful or not.

firstly, you're assuming im 'pissed'. Secondly, I have never defended, but only criticised the lobbying from Toto earlier in the race. Why do I need to revisit that over and over again? I've criticised Masi for being weak in his role, and we are discussing the decisive decision and lobbying at the end of the race.

What is your point with soccer? He agreed with RBR under pressure and lobbying.. the point is, was his decision making correct ? not according to the rules. So if we have a situation where lobbying the ref makes them break the rules, then it doesn't matter if he did it out of agreement or being too tentative, the point is he broke the rules which is a failure of race officiating. If he had followed the rules there would be no issue. And why would I be 'pissed' as an F1 fan if a race outcome was fair and the rules were correctly followed, and in that case, the winner was correct by the rules. If this had actually happened, we'd all be saying Max won fair and square, albeit lucky but there's nothing offensive about a lucky safety car.

Lucky that a race director was incompetent enough to be lobbied into betraying the rules that are supposed to be the basis of his decision making, is not really luck.

I do blame the RBR lobbying for Masi's decision making because they pushed him to restart the race.. and per the rules, it was not possible to get the last lap in without breaking them.

like I said, I don't accept lobbying from any team driver, and I haven't ever supported what Toto said. I still don't see why we need to hammer home that Toto was naughty there? Do you mean to say that Masi would have introduced a safety car but didn't because of Toto? are you sure? if not, then why do we need to go on about that event, if it did not change the course of the race result.

[DChemTech]

What is your point with soccer? He agreed with RBR under pressure and lobbying.. the point is, was his decision making correct ? not according to the rules. So if we have a situation where lobbying the ref makes them break the rules, then it doesn't matter if he did it out of agreement or being too tentative, the point is he broke the rules which is a failure of race officiating. If he had followed the rules there would be no issue. And why would I be 'pissed' as an F1 fan if a race outcome was fair and the rules were correctly followed, and in that case, the winner was correct by the rules. If this had actually happened, we'd all be saying Max won fair and square, albeit lucky but there's nothing offensive about a lucky safety car.

The point is that if a referee makes a decision that agrees with something a coach/player was shouting, that does not mean it was because the coach or player was saying that - correlation is not causation. And in this case even the correlation is weak, because Masi did something else than Wheatley was mentioning. So, I understand all the outrage towards Masi in this particular situation and to lobbying in general, but not to lobbying in this particular situation.

and no, I am not saying that Masi would have dispatched a safety car were it not for Toto. I am saying Toto was, in that instance, lobbying too. The desirability of lobbying does not hinge on the outcome, it's about the principle. You can never show that a particular lobbying action definitely influenced a referee action anyway.

[morefirejules08]

What is your point with soccer? He agreed with RBR under pressure and lobbying.. the point is, was his decision making correct ? not according to the rules. So if we have a situation where lobbying the ref makes them break the rules, then it doesn't matter if he did it out of agreement or being too tentative, the point is he broke the rules which is a failure of race officiating. If he had followed the rules there would be no issue. And why would I be 'pissed' as an F1 fan if a race outcome was fair and the rules were correctly followed, and in that case, the winner was correct by the rules. If this had actually happened, we'd all be saying Max won fair and square, albeit lucky but there's nothing offensive about a lucky safety car.

The point is that if a referee makes a decision that agrees with something a coach/player was shouting, that does not mean it was because the coach or player was saying that - correlation is not causation. And in this case even the correlation is weak, because Masi did something else than Wheatley was mentioning. So, I understand all the outrage towards Masi in this particular situation and to lobbying in general, but not to lobbying in this particular situation.

and no, I am not saying that Masi would have dispatched a safety car were it not for Toto. I am saying Toto was, in that instance, lobbying too. The desirability of lobbying does not hinge on the outcome, it's about the principle. You can never show that a particular lobbying action definitely influenced a referee action anyway.

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.

[AeroDynamic]

What is your point with soccer? He agreed with RBR under pressure and lobbying.. the point is, was his decision making correct ? not according to the rules. So if we have a situation where lobbying the ref makes them break the rules, then it doesn't matter if he did it out of agreement or being too tentative, the point is he broke the rules which is a failure of race officiating. If he had followed the rules there would be no issue. And why would I be 'pissed' as an F1 fan if a race outcome was fair and the rules were correctly followed, and in that case, the winner was correct by the rules. If this had actually happened, we'd all be saying Max won fair and square, albeit lucky but there's nothing offensive about a lucky safety car.

The point is that if a referee makes a decision that agrees with something a coach/player was shouting, that does not mean it was because the coach or player was saying that - correlation is not causation. And in this case even the correlation is weak, because Masi did something else than Wheatley was mentioning. So, I understand all the outrage towards Masi in this particular situation and to lobbying in general, but not to lobbying in this particular situation.

and no, I am not saying that Masi would have dispatched a safety car were it not for Toto. I am saying Toto was, in that instance, lobbying too. The desirability of lobbying does not hinge on the outcome, it's about the principle. You can never show that a particular lobbying action definitely influenced a referee action anyway.

RBR: Lobbying to restart the race.
Masi: I'm going to overrule the rules, to restart the race.


And you clearly firmly believe that Masi was going to overrule the rules if no lobbying to 'get a motor race on our hands' and 'you only need 1 lap' sentiments were not pushed upon him? why is it so easy for you to believe that, given the FIA and F1 have made the move to ban that from being possible in future? if they think it didn't play a role in this, they would not ban it. The psychology behind that decision from F1 and the FIA, really lines up with this. They clearly believe the lobbying affected his decision making.

I really question if your perception would be the same if Mercedes lobbied Masi in exactly the same nature, to where Masi then breaks the rules and allows Hamilton to attack Max with a massive and decisive advantage on tyres to win the title.

[Ryar]

What is your point with soccer? He agreed with RBR under pressure and lobbying.. the point is, was his decision making correct ? not according to the rules. So if we have a situation where lobbying the ref makes them break the rules, then it doesn't matter if he did it out of agreement or being too tentative, the point is he broke the rules which is a failure of race officiating. If he had followed the rules there would be no issue. And why would I be 'pissed' as an F1 fan if a race outcome was fair and the rules were correctly followed, and in that case, the winner was correct by the rules. If this had actually happened, we'd all be saying Max won fair and square, albeit lucky but there's nothing offensive about a lucky safety car.

The point is that if a referee makes a decision that agrees with something a coach/player was shouting, that does not mean it was because the coach or player was saying that - correlation is not causation. And in this case even the correlation is weak, because Masi did something else than Wheatley was mentioning. So, I understand all the outrage towards Masi in this particular situation and to lobbying in general, but not to lobbying in this particular situation.

and no, I am not saying that Masi would have dispatched a safety car were it not for Toto. I am saying Toto was, in that instance, lobbying too. The desirability of lobbying does not hinge on the outcome, it's about the principle. You can never show that a particular lobbying action definitely influenced a referee action anyway.

RBR: Lobbying to restart the race.
Masi: I'm going to overrule the rules, to restart the race.
Mercedes: Let's bet on race not restarting and not pit.

And you clearly firmly believe that Masi was going to overrule the rules if no lobbying to 'get a motor race on our hands' and 'you only need 1 lap' sentiments were not pushed upon him? why is it so easy for you to believe that, given the FIA and F1 have made the move to ban that from being possible in future? if they think it didn't play a role in this, they would not ban it. The psychology behind that decision from F1 and the FIA, really lines up with this. They clearly believe the lobbying affected his decision making.

Updated a missing point above.

[DChemTech]

What is your point with soccer? He agreed with RBR under pressure and lobbying.. the point is, was his decision making correct ? not according to the rules. So if we have a situation where lobbying the ref makes them break the rules, then it doesn't matter if he did it out of agreement or being too tentative, the point is he broke the rules which is a failure of race officiating. If he had followed the rules there would be no issue. And why would I be 'pissed' as an F1 fan if a race outcome was fair and the rules were correctly followed, and in that case, the winner was correct by the rules. If this had actually happened, we'd all be saying Max won fair and square, albeit lucky but there's nothing offensive about a lucky safety car.

The point is that if a referee makes a decision that agrees with something a coach/player was shouting, that does not mean it was because the coach or player was saying that - correlation is not causation. And in this case even the correlation is weak, because Masi did something else than Wheatley was mentioning. So, I understand all the outrage towards Masi in this particular situation and to lobbying in general, but not to lobbying in this particular situation.

and no, I am not saying that Masi would have dispatched a safety car were it not for Toto. I am saying Toto was, in that instance, lobbying too. The desirability of lobbying does not hinge on the outcome, it's about the principle. You can never show that a particular lobbying action definitely influenced a referee action anyway.

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.

[AeroDynamic]

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 because their rivals had some more bad luck... just no.

[morefirejules08]

The point is that if a referee makes a decision that agrees with something a coach/player was shouting, that does not mean it was because the coach or player was saying that - correlation is not causation. And in this case even the correlation is weak, because Masi did something else than Wheatley was mentioning. So, I understand all the outrage towards Masi in this particular situation and to lobbying in general, but not to lobbying in this particular situation.

and no, I am not saying that Masi would have dispatched a safety car were it not for Toto. I am saying Toto was, in that instance, lobbying too. The desirability of lobbying does not hinge on the outcome, it's about the principle. You can never show that a particular lobbying action definitely influenced a referee action anyway.

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