Please explain the controversy

Man, can they tell me next week's powerball numbers whilst they're at it?

 

Lewis could've pitted

 

Then they would've shown up to the FIA gala.

So thsts not it.

 

Inevitable?

https://www.racefans.net/2021/12/09/drivers-warned-points-deductions-possible-for-unethical-behaviour-in-title-showdown/

But please tell me your thoughts on Silverstone.

 

Indeed, you are right, pitting would be just a risk for Mercedes.

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Okay Terra, I see. You believe had ham attempted to defend harder on the last lap at Abu Dhabi, Max might have returned the favor from Silverstone and absorbed a similarly meaningless 10" penalty enroute to the WDC.

So either way...

1: Max imitates Silverstone ham and wins WDC
or
2: (what actually happened) Max outdrives a poorly defending ham and wins WDC

Outcome is the same. One day you will be able to accept it.

 

Section 15.3 is a general provision that gives the race director authority over a number of matters in relation to the clerk of the course, who is only allowed authority in relation to these matters with the race directors specific authority.

15.3 DOES NOT give the race director carte Blanche authority over the safety car. To be frank that is very much the view of the uneducated and would be laughed out of a court.


A number of points to consider:

• in statutory interpretation a specific provision overrides a general provision. That means 48.12, which is specifically about the procedure to follow the safety car, would take precedence over 15.3 even if 15.3 could be read to give such wide powers as some contend. If that approach did not apply, 48.12 would literally be redundant. Indeed, clause 2.1 requires competitors and officials to undertake to observe “all provisions”, so 15.3 cannot be read at the exclusion of 48.12.
• Where possible a text should be read in accordance with its ordinary meaning. The plain meaning of the words in 48.12 are quite clear - ie let all the lapped cars through, race starts end of the following lap.
• You can also determine the meaning of provisions by applying a purposive approach and looking at the scheme and purpose behind them. Para 15 of the rules is subheaded ‘officials’ which gives further weight to the interpretation that it’s about the use of various tools (including the safety car) in relation to the clerk. Para 48 is literally headed “safety car” and is thus the authoritive clause on matters in relation to the safety car
• You can determine the meaning of a text by looking at precedents and how the rules have been applied in the past. We literally have a quote from masi saying the rules (48.12) require all lapped cars to be let through. In past races, the rule that was invoked in relation to safety cars has always been 48 and not 15.3.
• Another reason why 15.3 cannot have the meaning Masi contended is because of the absurdities that would result. If masi had broad discretion over all matters listed in 15.3 he could literally bring out the safety car for no reason, he could also call reverse grids etc. these are all absurd outcomes and you have specific provisions governing the use of them.
• Article 1.1.1 of the 2021 FIA International Sporting Code makes clear that the regulations are to be enforced ‘based on the fundamental principles of safety and sporting fairness’. Safety and sporting fairness would’ve been upheld by adhering to 48.12 and the regulations need to be read in light of this overarching purpose. This makes the view on 15.3 untenable as it was both unsafe (confusion around lapped cars and back markers in the way) and unfair (giving max a clear run at Lewis but not giving sainz etc an opportunity to pass max).

 

If what Masi did was obviously right, we would start to see it regularly in the future. If not then there is your answer.

 

Please see racing driver Randy Pobst's "Vortex of Danger" admonition (i.e. "don't hit what you can see")

https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/p6qc95/randy_pobsts_thoughts_on_verstappenhamilton/

https://yousuckatracing.com/2021/04/07/the-vortex-of-danger-is-your-fault/

 

Randy who?

 

Randy Pobst is a very well respected and highly accomplished American professional road racer who's been around for decades.

 

TL;DR except for the last bit quoted above. Glad I saved myself the trouble of reading the rest.

Just from reading the last bit, I can easily counter with the fact that there was no confusion at the restart and no unsafe situation. After the questioning of which back-marker could overtake (and why) the order was sorted before the re-start, every driver was aware of the situation and being professional drivers with the appropriate level of skill, there was NO unsafe situation as evidenced by the fact the restart went off without a hitch. Also because the other drivers were very well aware of the championship situation and were careful to not interfere in fight for the lead.

As for the fair play aspect—for the 100th time—HAM and Merc had the same opportunity to pit for new tires as Max did but chose to not pit.

Had HAM pitted and Max countered by staying out, the roles would have been reversed with HAM second on new tires (in the dominant car of the race) and would have had the same opportunity to overtake as Max did. But this has been argued a hundred times already and the obvious cognitive dissonance in HAM fans is blocking all acceptance of this logical explanation—as all they wanted was to lock in the results and award HAM the win without having to work for it to the last lap—so it’s futile, obviously.

 

I’ve heard of him, thanks. My point is did he race at the highest level of international competition with very fast and responsive formula cars? Think not.

 

Well said. Save yourself the frustration. It’s interesting people joined this forum today to bolster others nonsense on this forum when they were getting buried.

 

No kidding!!! They came out of no where.

 

Someone made an affirmative decision to include the word "overriding". Why? What is this authority intended to override, if not the other articles?

 

You guys need to stick to the subscribed sections. You need at least $15 to play.

 

Here is audio showing all drivers being confused.

You along with others divert back to pitstops when you can't acknowledge Masi screwed up. For the 100th time, no rules were broken (overrode for you fancy folks) during any pitstops. Stop trying to divert back to pitstops. Masi's breaking (overriding for you fancy folks) safety car rules decided the outcome.

 

Of course, the FIA disagrees with you, and I believe they know more than you do in this particular area. One might even say they have overriding expertise.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I can assure I would given the same circumstances, because that is exactly what it was a farce

 

As per the post below, listen to the drivers onboards and they are extremely confused as to why the rules were not followed. When you have lapped cars intermingled between other cars fighting for position it can get very dangerous. I.e car 1 is a lapped car and needs to go off line to let car 2 and 3 through whilst 2 and 3 are jostling for position on low fuel, fresh tyres at qualifying speed.

On the basis of your logic then, why even use a safety car at all? Why not just have double yellows at turn 14. As you say these are professional drivers who can drive mm from a wall in Monaco at 250kph without crashing, so why can’t they move around a stricken car at severely reduced speeds. Hope that illustrates how moronic your safety argument is.

Your fairness argument is even worse. Removing lapped cars between the title contenders to give max a run at Lewis whilst keeping cars as a buffer between max and sainz is the very definition of unfair. Sainz and max very much dislike eachother so I’m sure he would’ve appreciated to take a run at max. But of course max got the benefit of an easy overtake without even having to defend his Position.

As I have said earlier, teams make strategic decisions based on the rules of the sport. When Mercedes saw a lap 54/58 safety car they would’ve calculated the time to clean up the track, let lapped cars through and the fact that racing can only start a lap later into the equation. If they had pitted Masi could very well have decided to follow the rules and they would have lost the race.

So for the 100th time, please stop bringing up nonsensical arguments. Now I’ve explained to you why they didn’t pit I hope you understand.

 

Congratulations once again to Max Verstappen.

 

Bingo.

 

I don’t see what your point is. The RD decision and subsequent stewarding decision to misapply the rules is what this entire controversy stems from. Your argument represents a “call to authority” but has no logical validity. If the FIA told you the sky was green and wrote that in a stewarding decision would that be sufficient proof for you?

What we have is a rogue decision maker who had made up the rules and then that decision has been reviewed by a panel of stewards appointed by him. They are not lawyers and there is no court to uphold objective decision making, hence the self serving ruling.

Intelligent and reasoned people look at the evidence. As a lawyer I have put some of the arguments forward to help people who may not have that training and may be confused by the stewards decision. This has been looked at by multiple lawyers and the legal position is quite clear and very much in Mercedes favour. If you want to argue interpretation I’m happy to do so but I’m telling you the legal position is very much stacked in Mercedes favour. The problem is there is no recourse other than another appeal to a body appointed by the FIA so the rigged championship results will stand despite it being an injustice and in contravention of the rules.