The general rule is that official decisions after the race can be reversed on a appeal, but not those issued during the race. That's because how can it be fair to the rest of the field for the result to be re-written, when they didn't make those rulings and ran their own race?
Thank you. Its the same. The reason I'm saying the same thing is because you all keep saying the same thing. He broke the rules, use override if you like. Use any word. Same result. No difference. None. Zero. Zip.
You really, REALLY need to read the rules, at least once. I'm not being a jerk ... i'm being quite serious. I'll tell you ONCE more: 15.3 gives the Race Director over-riding authority over the use of the safety car ... when it gets deployed, and when it gets called-in (in conjunction with 48.13, of course, as recently recognized by the stewards). It does NOT give the Race director over-riding authority over the entire race, NOR does it give the Race Director over-riding authority over anything and everything relating to Formula One. I'm genuinely sorry that you will never get the distinction. The safety car interval is NOT the entire race. I only realized, just now, that you didn't understand this. I really can't continue debating you, over something so incredibly basic as this. Other people in this thread will gladly continue to debate you, and maybe even support you ... but i need to put you on "ignore".
If what you say is right, why is it, before Merc dropped the appeal, at firsdthe fia said every body was wrong..?? what was it they said, some thing alone the lines of have notably generated significant misunderstanding and reactions from Formula 1 teams, drivers and fans, an argument that is currently tarnishing the image of the Championship ? ( Completely disrespecting fans, teams and drivers.. LOL ). Please, please please explain why before Merc dropped the appeal, the FIA council got involved and said this " “Following the decision of the World Motor Sport Council in Paris on 15th December 2021, the FIA administration, under the leadership of Mohammed Ben Sulayem, has started the detailed analysis of the events of the last Formula 1 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix,” the statement reads. “The FIA president launched a consultation with all F1 teams on various issues. " If all was fine, they wouldnt have any thing to investigate right? So, you still saying it was fine? P.S i dont want LH to have the title, I am a Ferarri fan, i keep telling you that...... Both max and Lewis deserved it obviously, it went to the last race.... MV won, how or why it was won is irrelevent, It wasnt MV fault so nothing to do with him, so cant punish him for Masi's mistake...
A fair question, i'll do my best to answer. Could be, that the FIA is going to "investigate" simply because Mercedes is threatening to remove Hamilton from F1, if they don't. Personally, i certainly hope that's NOT the case ... such a situation would be far, FAR worse for the sport than anything we've seen in recent memory. More likely, the investigation could very well be rooted in something like this: The rules as currently written give VERY broad power to the Race Director, concerning the use of the safety car. In Abu Dhabi, Masi exercised this power, well within the authority given to him by the rules-as-currently-written (just exactly as the stewards concluded, when they quickly rejected Mercedes' protest). HOWEVER, we (FIA) are investigating a CHANGE to the safety car rules, in order to promote a better, safer racing environment where unusual circumstances won't give rise to so much confusion for the teams, the fans, etc etc yada yada Again, if rule changes are coming ... that tends to exonerate Masi, much more than implicate him. Otherwise, if the FIA feels that Masi simply "went rogue" and broke the rules, then the FIA would just fire Masi and keep the rules as-written. Done. I'm not being argumentative, this is genuinely how I see an "investigation" that's consistent with: the findings of the stewards, the rules in-place in 2021, and Verstappen's victory as WDC of 2021.
In 1976, after the Spanish GP, James Hunt's car was found by the stewards in post-race checks to be 1.8cm too wide and he was disqualified from his win. The decision was later overturned on appeal by the FIA and he was reinstated. Still in 1976, James Hunt won the British GP. but Ferrari appealed against it on the ground that Hunt had changed car between the warming up lap and the race itself (there was an accident in between), contrary to the rules. A few months later, the FIA disqualified Hunt and declared Niki Lauda as the winner. These are 2 examples I remember. So, I think there are precedent where race results in F1 have been reversed.
The rules are written properly, if Masi took the FIA regulations into consideration and left all cars lapped or let all cars unlap and it was fair for all, and all was treated equally then we wouldnt be here right now, but we are, becuase he didnt apply any sporting fairnes to his decision. i am not saying he cant pull the sfaety car in early, or that he can leave it out longer than the race cleric says, but he cant override every set regualtions, even those in the first 5 that also state he should make all decisions based on the fia international sporting code. if he can, then it means he can change even the technical regs with out warning, edit who can and cant race, tell Bob he has to run with half a tank of fuel, and tell Alonso he cant apply more than half throttle and that any race wins for any one other than bob earns just 1 point while bob gets 50 for finishing last......... and they would all have to abide by that.. Can you see problems yet witht he way you are interpriting the lay out and the regtulations around Masis power or that Masi over stepped his powers and made decisions which go against the fundamentle principle of sport - sporting fairness? Im am still amazed Masi can do what he likes, Yet the FIA council and president must have permission from the teams to change any thing in the reg. So really its f1 racing director who is top dog, the boss, the person with the power And every one else goes down here, so the president, the fia council, Ross and so on... This is what your interpritation says.
Once again ... 15.3 does NOT say that the Race Director has over-riding authority on ALL issues relating to F1, including who may race, what fuel loads to run, how much power each car can have, what the drivers eat for breakfast, what throttle to apply at each turn, what points each driver will get at the end of the race, who the drivers may date, where the driver's parents may live, how loud the cars can be, what the CO2 emissions from each car may be, who is allowed on the podium after the race, what TV channels the races are broadcast on, when it's ok to gain a position by going off-track, on and on and on Instead ... 15.3 DOES say that the Race Director has over-riding authority on the use of the safety car. Even with this more restricted "area of power" ... the Stewards still recognize that Masi acted within his authority. My turn for a question: Why is the phrase (or qualifier) "in accordance with the Sporting Regulations" conspicuously present on 15.3 a) thru c), but conspicuously absent on 15.3 d) and e) (use of the safety car)? What does that absence mean to you?
We have to be patient and see what conclusions the FIA enquiry will come up with on March 18. They have several aspects to consider, the rules and protocol first, then the race director authority and the role of Masi at Abu Dhabi. I don't think they will review the result or the race, or the championship. I am not even sure if there is still a call for that, at this point. It's less than 2 months away, but it will be a long wait for many.
The reason for the investigation is because Mercedes have demanded it, and they bring massive financing to F1. The FIA fears upsetting them far more than any other manufacture, because of the factory team they have created for the sport, the fact that 8 out of 20 cars on the grid use Mercedes engines, and that the sports most accomplished driver, who has celebrity status, drives for them. Not hard to figure out the politics of that. Don't get kid yourself, Williams or McLaren would not be granted such a farce investigation. And yes, the investigation is what's truly farce. It's reward Mercedes public smearing of F1. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your straw men.
I'll emphasize this point once again, even though some apparently still refuse to recognize the distinction: The "over-riding authority" given to the Race Director in 15.3 is restricted by the qualifier "in accordance with the Sporting Regulations" in a) thru c). No such qualifier exists in d) and e) (use of the safety car). There's no reason to believe that this is a mistake by the authors. The meaning is quite clear (seems to me): The authority of the Race Director is absolute, plenary and final ... WHEN IT COMES TO THE SAFETY CAR. HOWEVER ... this "absolute" authority (unrestricted by other Sporting Regulations) granted to the Director does NOT extend to any other areas mentioned in 15.3 (except d, the race start), nor does it extend to any other areas outside the scope of 15.3. For what it's worth, I'm still open to comments on this point ... it's not a small or minor one.
Just send Messy back to OZ , to play round with the saloons,where he belongs. Aussie Rules Football springs to mind ...his sort of messy rules.
The rules are different now. AFAIUI, any possible appeals processes have been timed-out. Except for the fact that Mercedes have made virtually no public comment. It's entirely the FIA's mess and the criticism has come from pretty much every corner except some die-hard VER fans. But in the end its to the benefit of us all (assuming we are fans of the sport) to have a solid set of rules and a sporting code with integrity.
I think the unlapping rule came to be because of the neutralized race, some would have the unfair advantage of a few cars in between was seen as an unfair advantage. The best solution they came up with was to have lapped cars unlap. Fair or not, I've no real say on it. In all honestly it depends on the situation on whose driver is affected really. In nearly the same way it's also quite unfair for a driver to build up a huge lead only to see it eroded for a genuinely pointless safety car (like we've seen plenty of times in the past that led to the existence of the virtual safety car, and the use of the VSC and SC is still hotly debated each time it comes out as quite often I feel a full SC is called to artificially spice up the race). I see no real solution to it all though. Life is unfair. I guess racing is at times, also. Aggregate timing would be the most fair, but who wants to watch that ****show? I remember they had it for a while in the early 90s. Who wants to do maths on a Sunday?
If you say so, but you see, you said all that, but you have failed to understand it properly, , as it says in what you posted your self says that ( Like all the regs on the sporting regs ) must comply with the first reg of the FIA international sporting code 1.1.1, he also must comply with the first 5 f1 sporting regs, they all says he must comply with the fia international sporting regs and do say that you cant change the rules during the season unless for safety, and all changes to rules and every thing need to comply with the principles of fair racing. What he did, did not comply with the first few f1 sporting regs as it didnt comply with the fia code.... you starting to see the point yet? The problem is not his use of the safety car, but his implemtation of not allowing ALL the cars to unlap them selfs and only choose those between LH and MV thus creating an unfair finish, he didnt not treat all drivers the same as he did LH and MV, if he did, then we wouldnt be here, he wouldnt be odds on to be sacked, and the FIA wouldnt be investigating his over stepping use of his powers, which i would proberly bet has not just come from mercs, but sponsors and potential investers too, and as we already know, it wasnt just Merc who was unhappy with what happened as the FIA has not disclosed which other teams have said they are not happy, Sky have said ( In the words of brundle ) Quite a few teams had lodged complaints, not for just the last race either....
Absolutely on the first point. The rules need to be written clearer so people understand more. See it a little (not completely) like the 1998 Silverstone penalty, which Schumacher served on the last lap (having crossed the finish line in the pit as their box was after it). The rules where unclearly written at the time as well and people didn't understand what was going on. Same with Schumacher 2010 Monaco, the SC went in the pit the last few hundred meters of the race. Schumacher passed SC line 1 which meant you're allowed to overtake..and he overtook Alonso. Though no rules where breached, somehow Schumacher was still penalized and upheld. I think us Max fans are annoyed that people are trying to put an asterisk behind Max's title, but we also feel that with all the stuff that happened against Max (both from the FIA and Mercedes), he drove better all season and he is the correct champion anyways. And considering what went on earlier that GP (forget the rest of the season), the luck swung Max's way, and with the ballsier strategy (remember he gave up track position to those lapped drivers when he pitted), grabbed it wit both hands and won.
People are not trying to put an asterisk by maxs title, Masi did that........ you cant ignor what he did, as you can tell cause its still the most talked about topic on the internet, its gets more hits than the current transfer window for the footballing world, it gets talked about every time a ref makes a call the commentators dont agree with... its brought up in stand up comady and live tv shows... its constanly refered to in the news paper, the news, on your phone, its all over the place.... Nothing ballsier about pitting with 0 risk of losing postion........ all to gain though..... Would it have been a good idea if all cars had unlapped or if none unlapped? if none unlapped he would have put him self behind an extra car, costing him another 2 - secs to clear in the lap ( not including the time lost on the run down to the safetycar line... after all, those 5 cars would all be fighting for position so wont be going slowly at the restart ), or it will have finished under safety car... Both options make it very unlikely if at all possible for max to finish first, ofc none can predict what will happen if no cars unlapped, but given the 5 cars inbetween and all fighting for position,its more than likely max would be 5- 6 behind before max is allowed to over take... huge gap to close whilst having to catch 5 back markers all still fighting for position. taking max an average of 2 secs to celar each one, he wouldnt catch LH, he would be gone......
+1 Also Senna won the final race in 1989, only for the FIA to later cancel his win due to "not completing race distance". Anything is possible in F1
Next race. Lap 25. Max is in 1st. Hamilton pits from 2nd during SC. Masi only allows Hamilton to unlap himself on new tires so he can be behind Max. The belief is Masi is within the rules. I want to see the percentage of you all who support Masi on this. Reply yes or no.
I would do it because I consider Red Bull to have made a strategic mistake by not putting Max in. Once again, it was a Mercedes mistake that caused Lewis to lose the title.
But RB didn't know that Masi was gonna have only Lewis unlap himself. But thanks for answering. We have one yes so far...
