Some also understand why the Hamilton haters are quite happy with the way the finish unfolded, and will say anything to justify it !!!
By "say anything to justify it" ... are you referring to quoting the rules, the stewards, and Andrew Shovlin? Yep ... i guess i'm "guilty as charged" for reading the rules, understanding English, agreeing with BOTH the letter of the rules (expressed by the stewards) AND the "spirit" of the rules (expressed by Shovlin) Darnit, I'll just "say anything" ... won't I?
I've noticed that the Hamilton fanboys tend to get all beside themselves when their questions aren't answered immediately in this forum. And yet, this question i asked days ago has gone un-answered (i think): Here's another question: Why is the phrase "in accordance with the Sporting Regulations" present for subsections a thru c of Rule 15.3 (that pesky rule which gives over-riding authority to the Race Director), but conspicuously absent for subsections d and e (use of the safety car)? (there i go again, just sayn' any ole' thing ... )
I did comment on this ages ago ..maybe on another thread .It's a get out of jail free card for Messy. Anyhow now that F1 is moving towards Middle East control you can expect a lot more weird stuff coming up in future
Question for you in general. Do you believe the FIA has ever made an incorrect call pertaining to actions instigated by Redbull?
Because Sporting Regulation are rules that 15.3 has to adhere to. Meaning it cedes importance to the specific rules themselves. It basically regulates 15:3 to work within the framework of regulation, not outside the frame of set regulation as you imply. Now please answer my preceding question.
Get out of jail free card, poorly written or intentionally left in there for the race director to make certain calls he deems necessary in order to move the race along? Whichever way you interpret it, it means that the rules aren't as clearly breached as a certain camp hopes they are.
Can override the race clerk, not the rules and regulations on which the whole compitition is held on, as stated in the rules, surely you can understand that right? a Reff upholds the rules and follows them, not swaps changes maniputlate them.... Thats common sense............
Rule 48.12 specifically mentions that any unlapped cars in the process of unlapping, must try and catch up to the back of the line, but they are not required to do so. Rule 48.13 supersedes .12 in it's opening: With no stranded cars on the track, no debris on the track, it was obviously safe to do so. Again i ask you, do you really believe Sainz on his old tyres could've done anything to Max had he started directly behind him, without the mclaren inbetween them?
You can either unlap all cars or not unlap all cars. Those are the rules. Because if you don't do exactly that it is not equally fair to all drivers. As for Sainz, again, this is a sporting competition. Stranger things have happened. Sainz should have been given an equal chance. If only two drivers are favored, that is a contrived decision to affect an outcome. There is simply no way to explain that away. I literally had no idea so many here want unequal competition.
Technically speaking it doesn't mention anywhere in the rules that ALL cars must unlap. Again we go back to my earlier point, if ALL cars unlapped, would anything have changed in the outcome of the championship at all? Max would still have won. If Sainz could've done anything at all, it would've been to overtake Lewis after Max took him, at a big push. Perhaps one or two cars just outside the top 10 could've made it. Hardly life changing or championship altering. Yuki was directly behind sainz and didn't manage to overtake for a potential first podium. If all cars unlapped, nothing would've changed in that regard. Those seeking to de-legitimize Max's championship because not every single car was able to unlap, are grasping at straws.
Again as we were talking about a few pages before, Max couldn't have won if either of the two legal outcomes were followed. Masi's Original Call: Bring in Safety Car, NO cars unlap, 1 lap of green flag racing. Or Let all cars unlap, Safety car in on Lap 58, Lewis wins by default as race ends under safety car. Masi invented a third option, only after getting a call from Horner about moving the lapped cars. No actual racing fan is trying to delegitimize Max. We want to take the FIA to task for doctoring an outcome. It's regrettable, as Max did nothing wrong here, but he benefitted from it. What's done is done. Again, Max can keep his championship. But please don't insult my intelligence by saying the Abu Dhabi result was fair.
Masi was still busy making sure the track was clear. Up until that point, cars weren't allowed to unlap (which is standard). Only when it was clear, certain cars would unlap, and the message was given that the SC was in that very lap. As far as I can work out, rule 48.13 overrides 48.12. .13 was used after a select amount of cars where able to unlap, in order to finish under green conditions, something all teams wanted, and something Mercedes previously commented on ''added excitement to the order'' (funnily enough they wanted that because at the time they made this comment, they where uncompetitive and it was a good way to score points. They removed this particular statement from their website entirely after it was pointed out a few weeks ago. Hypocrites!). Lewis benefitted plenty of stewards/Masi's nonsense twice in the race earlier, first with Lewis allowed to skip the track, 2nd time when Toto lobbied to NOT have an SC despite 2 cars stranded on tracks at different points entirely. We've had full SC plenty of times for 1 stranded car with no debris. That wasn't fair either, was it? With the way the rules are written/interpreted it's nowhere near as clear cut as many make it out to be. This was a decision made in seconds and people more than a month later are still trying to interpret it. Mercedes themselves gave up the case. If it was THAT clear cut that FIA breached the rules, they'd have pursued it and won both titles. After all the fuss they made, they damage of making themselves look like a bunch of sore losers was already done. They knew their case wasn't that clear cut. I like the use of "no legitimate racing fan''. As it's primarily die hard Lewis supporters that are doing their best to acknowledge Lewis as the 8th WDC, and calling Max's title fake.
I didn't say that, did I? I'm saying that nothing would've changed had ALL cars unlapped themselves. Zero. Sainz still wouldn't have been able to overtake Max (or Lewis). Yuki wouldn't have done anything (and nothing for him changed, anyways). One thing is quite funny though: Sainz on old tyres did keep behind Yuki on new softs.
Red Bull used the situation to execute perfect strategy...even calling in Perez to avoid and engine failure and another yellow on the last last was quite genius I thought.
But all cars didn't unlap, thats the contreversy. But the question is fairness. Everbody deserves to compete. Should this become reguler procedure if one thinks "it wont make a difference"?
There is no doubt that Red Bull maximized every opportunity given the options presented to them and kudos to them for it. It is also one of the reasons the FIA finds itself in such a dilemma. Because Red Bull really did nothing wrong as per the rules it becomes difficult to take the victory away from them for a decision the FIA made. It's a real mess.
All cars didn't unlap indeed. The couple that didn't, wouldn't have had any impact on their ultimate end result or their standing in the championship. Regarding the fairness, was it fair that Toto influenced Masi not to put a full safety car around lap 38, because Mercedes didn't pit? No. But it still happened. Was it fair that Lewis got a big jump ahead in lap 1 and didn't even have to give up the position like Max had to the race previous, for a smaller gain? No. But it still happened. Masi only became a problem for you lot the very moment 1 decision went against Lewis. If all happened exactly like the usual procedure, you guys would still ***** and moan that Max only won because people where to unlap.
Max still competed after the first lap. When you deny cars to unlap themselves they remain a lap down. You can't compare the two. You can't just adopt the rules to the championship contenders and not the others.
Had the roles been inversed, with Verstappen losing a potential win because of Masi's action, I guess we would hear a different rhetoric from Max' supporters,. But that's OK, I can understand that . I don't even begrudge Verstappen winning, although I wish it had been different. At least he fought hard for the title all season, and his win at Abu Dhabi is less fortuitious than Ocon's in Hungary.
With time running out to obtain the race finishing under green, Masi rushed things and improvised a last minute duel between the 2 contenders. He could only do that by deliberately interpreting/flouting some rules. But in any case, the confrontation proved to be unequal. I don't think he anticipated the controversy and the ensuing backlash.
No. First, your answer makes no sense. Second, I've still got at least one unanswered question. Please try again.
