Was this article written FOR third graders ... or BY third graders? It completely ignores the most significant point from yesterday's FIA's announcement. Article quote: "The new race directors, Niels Wittich and Eduardo Freitas, will act alternately with the support of a permanent assistant, Herbie Blash, a veteran of the Bernie Ecclestone era, as well as a remote VAR system that will help adjudicate in real time. The truth is it was not failings in the old structure that let Hamilton down and rewarded Verstappen, but the arbitrary over-riding of convention by one man. The rules that would have delivered an eighth title to Hamilton were in place. They just weren’t followed." Mohammed Ben Sulayem quote: "Thirdly, unlapping procedures behind safety car will be reassessed by the F1 Sporting Advisory Committee and presented to the next F1 Commission prior to the start of the season." For the hundredth time: IF the rules were just fine, and simply broken by a "rogue director" (as the article clearly states), THEN why is there a need to review and possibly change the rules?? With all due respect to Mr. Garside ... the REAL truth is, personnel changes are merely political "window dressing", designed to placate the weak-minded. Changes to the rules are longer-lasting and more impactive ... this is where the substance is. Changes to the rules will tell the real story. Changes to the rules will reinforce MV as the undisputed 2021 champion, under 2021 rules ... with no qualifiers, with no asterisks.
There are a lot of people here that are very knowledgeable in the history of other sports so I would like to pose a question: Can anyone point to a singular ruling from a referee in any sport where some players/participants were singled out and treated in a certain way while others were omitted from or treated differently to the others? Please do not point to previous rulings differing to other ones, the perceived righting of previous 'injustices', or any other justifications. It is a really simple question that deserves an equally simple answer. I personally cannot think of such a situation and find it difficult to understand how anyone could consider such behavior from the individual who is entrusted to equitably enforce rules fair or sporting.
F.1....for example Nürburgring 2007 when the crane picked up elton amongst all the others that were in the gravel trap and put him back on the track.
You've made it impossible for your position to be countered, by constraining the discussion. Sorry, but inconsistent rulings often point to how certain drivers are singled out. I have no problem with Masi and the stewards being criticized. I've been critical of them before Abu Dhabi, and I agree the ending was handled ****ty. The problem I have is this idea that the last lap in Abu Dhabi was some first instance of the stewards and Masi doing something questionable that changed the outcome of a race and the WDC. I share Alonso's opinion that if Hamilton or another British national was not one of the players in Abu Dhabi, this would not be anywhere near the controversy, if it was a controversy at all.
Agreed. There's just no valid counterpoint, to the argument that Masi's unfair and inconsistent actions in lap one were at least as impactful on the final outcome, as any unlapping decisions made later in the race. It takes a serious set of blinders to focus on the last lap of the last race ... while summarily ignoring everything else from not only the last season, but even from earlier in the same damn race!!
If Hamilton had to give the position back, both Verstappen and Perez would've gotten by him, and then who knows how that plays out.
EXACTLY. Would Verstappen's "win" have been "guaranteed" if Masi had been fair, and made Hamilton give the position back on lap one? NO, of course not ... there are no guarantees in racing. The outcome would have been no more "certain" ... no more "pre-ordained" ... than allowing the drivers to race for one final green lap at the end.
It was said Max pushed LH off the track and Lh had to take evasive action = 5 sec penalty, the fact Lewis went over the line is irrelevant as max forced him to do so, its why redbull stopped complaining when Masi reminded them of that on the radio before asking them if they would like to let the stewards deal with it, for which Horner promptly accepted it Masi words snd went super quiet........ Funny how all but MV did not understand the rules of racing.. One of many incidents Max has been alowed to get away with, did reporters ever find out why he went Mexico during the Brazil GP? Wonder if he will get away with it while the FIA are trying to promote closer racing.. I read that f1 is the only motorsport that doesnt DQ brake checking.. Although i reckon if any other driver did it, they would have got DQed.
All I asked was for a generalized question from sport to be answered. I'm not trying to make a connection to any one driver or even F1 but rather try to understand if other sports selectively apply rules to some players/participants over others?
Watch any US football game ... fans will always complain that "their team" gets penalized for "holding", or "pass interference", more than the "other team". Happens dozens of times every season. "bad (or inconsistent, unfair) refereeing" is a very common complaint in every sport, as far as i know.
That is a fascinating example and I'll have to look more into what exactly happened in that race to better understand the circumstances. Unfortunately I don't have that good a memory to remember every race. That said from memory the marshals are allowed to assist a driver re-join the track so long as the driver kept the engine running. From what I remember the controversy was that other drivers had also spun nearby and the question was why were they not helped too. Of course post Jules Bianchi this kind of thing would never happen again but at the time it was not uncommon. What was strange was the use of a crane as opposed to just a push. From experience I'd eliminate the marshals here from responsibility because they are not ever fully up to speed on the regulations and generally just worry about keeping the track clear. It would then be up to the FIA to decide if any rules were broken and apply penalties as needed. Again I'd have to do some background research to better understand what happened.
I totally agree that inconsistent refereeing is not uncommon but that refers to multiple calls judged over time. What I am referring to is one call where the referee says 'you players do this' and then points to others and applies different rules to them.
Haven't we seen Verstappen ordered to give a place back, in exactly the same circumstances? Hell, I watched Hamilton push Verstappen off track in the first lap at Austin last year (Verstappen did not gain a position, but there was no penalty given to Hamilton for pushing Verstappen off-track ... so pushing or squeezing is "legal" when Hamilton does it, but when Verstappen does it, Hamilton is allowed to gain a lasting advantage?).
I just don't understand why "in the same moment" matters. If the "unjustice" is separated by a play or two in football, or a lap or two (even a race or two) in racing, isn't the outcome the same? Championship points accumulate all season long in F1. There's no "reset button" between races. Unfair treatment by officials from race-to-race, has the same impact on the season as unfair treatment in the same lap of the same race. Consistency matters, or it doesn't, right? No matter, the time delta between rulings. Example: MV gets penalized for gaining an advantage off-track, in an earlier race. LH is allowed to gain an advantage off-track, in a later race. How would this unjustice be any different ... if it happened on the same lap of the same race?
Simple, one is an example of inconsistent rule application as judged over multiple rulings while another is a singular ruling where individual participants are singled out to receive different rules applied to them. This refers to two very different conceptual differences and as you will see I have not brought up racing in the slightest with my request. You are free to pick from anywhere in the world of professional sport for an example.
Well, in many sports ... one team is on the offense, while the other team is on defense. So again, some inconsistencies may be applied and observed only over events separated in time. Traveling in basketball can only be called against one player at a time ... but if one team is penalized for it, while the other team is allowed "carte blanche", does it matter that these calls are separated in time? Still "unfair" by any definition, right? Same for pass interference in football (i know, there is the rare call of offensive interference). One team called for the slightest contact, while the other team is allowed to tackle receivers before the catch is made. Grossly unfair rulings, by any definition ... in no way "lessened" or less egregious because the calls weren't made in the exact same moment. Know what i mean?
Kimi 2007 - you really do have the most deluded viewpoint on F1. Maybe when you have been around a bit longer you will learn to have a more rounded view.
Agreed, it's rather ironic that invariably Kimi Raikkonen could be funny, that's if you could decipher his mumbling
I honestly and truly couldn't give less than **** if you don't approve of my posts. Makes little difference to me. I'm entitled to what is my view, and you're entitled to yours. That's really all there is to it. If my posts annoy you, that's understandable. To each their own. Feel free to ignore them at any time. Believe me, it won't break my heart to not hear from you.
Look no further than the blue flags. F1 and other motorsports are notorious for the blue flags being put out to get slower cars out of the way of the top 2 front runners, then seemingly being absent 50% of the time when 3rd place and back are dealing with back markers themselves. It's no secret that the top 2 front runners get better treatment in that regard.
It makes absolutely no difference whether the inconsistency is encompassed in one call, or several over the course of an event or events. The unfair advantage that some participants will receive remains the bottom line issue. If one group drivers consistently get reprimands, as opposed to another group that receive an infraction on the first offense, that is exactly different rules applying to different drivers, no matter how you slice it. One might disagree whether such a thing is happening, but that's a different matter.
