Michael Masi gets fired/replaced?

Your emphasis on "rob" is well-placed.

We're supposed to believe that Hamilton's direct shunt in Silverstone didn't "rob" Verstappen of championship points ... but Masi's decision to let the drivers race at Abu Dhabi somehow "robbed" Hamilton of his 8th championship (knowing full well that LH could very well "silverstone" MV again in that last lap, just as LH vowed to do ... and the stewards would turn a blind eye, again).

Once more, true fans of the sport ... who watch more than 1 race per season ... simply aren't buying it.


Verstappen won his first WDC by passing Hamilton, cleanly, on a racetrack. Everything else is just whining from sore losers.

 

BULL!! Hamilton won races and podiumed throughout the year. He trained and raced just as Max did. He even came back and won 4 straight races until Masi intervined. You can't dismiss all his wins. You can't dismiss all Max's losses. HAMILTON is the reason he had a shot at the title. Just like Max is the reason he had a shot. Be fair.

 

Lol you funny

 

Don't forget Bottas ramming both RB's at Hungary. Another likely podium gone from Max because of Mercedes contact.

One thing that most people missed was how when Hamilton foolishly left the door open at turn 5, and Max dived inside, that Hamilton, with Max already alongside him, tried to turn back in on Max, seeing he was already along side him.

I remember telling my dad back in 2016 in Abu Dhabi, I was wondering if Hamilton was slowing down back into Rosberg, in hopes Rosberg would try and pass him, and that here could be contact, where Hamilton could continue on and win the title.

Got my answer last year.

 

What on Earth are you on about?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60160969

 

If we go back to the example I brought up of the police officer driving at high speed with the siren and lights on the whole thing can be looked at in this fashion:

1. The officer is like Masi who is given a certain power and it is up to them to decide if that power should be exercised inside of the more over-arching principle which is that of law enforcement. If he flicks his lights on and speeds to the donut shop there is certainly some law that can be pointed to where it can be argued that the officer has the power to drive at high speed. When you put it into the context that the drive was a self-serving donut run then that law viewed in isolation does not work without a greater premise to apply it towards.

2. The FIA and the internal stewards are like Internal Affairs. Still the police but tasked to decide if what they did was wrong. Most of this happens behind closed doors and the whole process is shielded from public scrutiny. This allows for incorrect behavior to be brushed aside a little and issues like the hassles replacing the officer and raising questions of why the officer was not trained better to not have this happen can be managed so nobody is the wiser. Maybe the officer gets a penalty in private but realistically not much happens.

Now let's assume that during that high speed donut dash the officer creates a situation that causes a Ferrari owner to crash his F40 (we'll use property damage here rather than turn it into a personal injury example). The Ferrari owner now sues the city in order to have an investigation. The whole case is heard by an independent court where the police department argues that the officer is entitled by the law to drive at high speed where the Ferrari owner argues that while the officer is allowed by law to speed the circumstances under which he decided to rip through town not only was an abuse of power but also caused their client material damage.

Guys I can't make it any simpler than this.

Oh and BTW arguing that the F40 driver is rich anyways from his previous business successes so he can afford to fix his own car does not carry value in a court of law although Joe average on the street would think it is fitting justice

 

Do we really need another topic for this?

 

in a way yes, as we have the Masi to get fired or not thread, but this is about Masi's use of power during the season as a whole rather than just one race, although it does mostly cover the last race as that was the final straw so to speak in a series of errors during the whole season and others " but that the errors he made there were merely the biggest and latest of a series over the course of the 2021 season and before."

 

Well since the piece is just a historic summary with extra speculation the answer is: no

 

Must be a LOT of people who aren't true fans, I would surmise...

Why is this a big deal?
The fallout from Abu Dhabi remains the single biggest topic facing F1 and the FIA.

The credibility of the sport has been called into question - the FIA itself has admitted it was "tarnishing the image" of F1.

And Hamilton, who is said to have lost trust in the FIA, will not decide whether to return to F1 this year until he has an understanding of the actions the governing body plans to take to address the concerns that arose during 2021 over race management.

There is a feeling that the FIA initially believed the furore over Abu Dhabi would die down with time.

But one influential senior figure told BBC Sport: "Anyone thinking this would go away has not realised the gigantic size of this event."

 

I agree. Merged with the existing Masi thread.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

It's my understanding that there are plenty of rules and regulations that dictate when a cop can turn on lights and sirens, and speed thru traffic ... actions which clearly endanger the safety of others. Cops may only drive at high speeds, as i understand it, with lights and sirens ... running red lights, endangering safety everywhere ... if they are responding to an emergency (crime in progress, medical emergency, etc).

In other words, there are rules & regulations that clearly, explicitly LIMIT the cop's use of lights and sirens, rules & regulations that dictate when it's permissible to speed and run red lights.

YES, it is CERTAINLY true that a cop may choose to violate those rules, at any moment ... he surely has the power to do so, at his fingertips ... but that behavior doesn't suggest or imply the absence of such rules.

Similarly, there are rules and regulations for when a cop may discharge a firearm. He certainly has the "power" to point a weapon at the donut shop clerk, and demand donuts for free ... doesn't mean there aren't clearly-written rules that limit or regulate such behavior.


So ... where are the F1 rules that clearly, explicitly LIMIT the authority of the Race Director, as it pertains to the use of the safety car? Must be rules somewhere, that explicitly "over-ride" 15.3 for your analogy to be valid (and please remember ... unlike the other subsections of 15.3, the "over-riding authority" given to the Race Director "over the use of the safety car" isn't even qualified or restricted by the phrase "in accordance with other Sporting Regulations"). And why didn't the stewards invoke these rules that clearly limit the Race Director's authority over the safety car ... instead of denying Mercedes' protest?

 

News flash: Hamilton is bluffing and the FIA know it. He'll be on the grid because he's contracted to. He'd be sued by Mercedes if he backs out this late.

If Hamilton did retire the sport would move on just fine, just as it did after Senna, Schumacher, team order controversies, USGP 2005, Spygate, Crashgate, etc. The TV ratings would stay the same or even rise, like they did after Schumacher's dominance was over. Hamilton is a massive fool if he thinks he can hold the sport hostage, when far bigger forces than him have tried to and failed.

It would also tarnish Hamilton's legacy to retire. He'd be confirming to many that he's a sore loser like Albon rightfully called him out as, and that he's looking for any excuse to avoid racing without a massive car advantage over his competitors.

The only reason this is still being talked about is because the British media can't emotionally cope with a title going away in the last lap, as if their national drivers are supposed to be immune and protected by the FIA from last minute motorsports heartbreaks.

 

Here's my analogy ...

A sitting judge hears cases all day, every day. He is known for giving first-time burglars the lightest possible sentence. But on this particular day, after giving 2 burglars the minimum sentence (again) ... he gives the maximum sentence to the 3rd burglar.

"That's not fair!!" cries the public defender, who represents all the burglars, "You broke with tradition! Not only that ... you've exceeded your authority, and broke the law!!"

Does the public defender have valid points? Should the judge be removed from the bench?

 

The problem with that analogy is that in the case of the judge, he is permitted a range of punishments and that range is dictated both by law and by precedent.

To answer your question if the judge acted within an accepted range then no the defender does not have valid points. If the judge realized he did not have enough time to hand out a sentence inside of the expected norm and uses his power to makeshift something never before seen before the clock runs out then yes the defender has every right to question the judge.

If we return to F1 (again assuming that Masi did legally have the right to do what he did) Masi handed out a 'sentence' that was in no way consistent with anything ever seen before nor was it consistent with his over-arching mandate of safety and sporting fairness. To complicate matters worse that decision fundamentally altered the result of the race and championship thereby compounding the value of the decision.

With greater value comes greater scrutiny and for an individual who prior to the race in Abu Dhabi made it a point to stress the importance of a sporting finish, Masi showed incredibly poor judgement to go rouge with his decision making when the situation in no way warranted it.

I then pose the question. What was so special about the final yellow flag period that warranted a protocol that was any different than anything previously seen? Please answer me that.

 

First off... i enjoy and respect these discussions with you. Thank you!

I suspect that Masi acted as he did because of the pre-race agreement with all teams to finish under green if at all possible (I don't know if this agreement was written or verbal, but its existence was recognized by the stewards, and refuted by no one). Further, the safety car interval at Abu Dhabi 2021 ended-up being very consistent with the average safety car interval at Abu Dhabi (which is 3.2 laps, from 2010 to 2020) ... so, no team can argue that they picked a pit/tire strategy during the safety car interval based on any expectation to finish under yellow.

After all these posts and pages, I still see no valid argument that Masi acted outside or beyond his authority, as dictated by the rules (stewards agree completely, as we all know). Yes, the unlapping was "unusual", but not "illegal" (hence, my judge analogy, above). I've also argued that Mercedes, especially, has no room to complain, and should not have been surprised ... because Mercedes' own written description of the "spirit of unlapping" specifically says that only the "majority" of the field needs to be on the same lap, after unlapping, in order to promote "exciting racing" where drivers on "fresh rubber" can challenge drivers on "old tyres".

Regarding the "impact" point ... YES, the decisions of referees in any sports can, and do, impact the outcome of the event! But that "impact", alone, doesn't mean that referees have too much power, or that they acted outside the scope of their authority.

Regarding the "fairness" complaint ... who, exactly, was the result "unfair" to? It wasn't unfair to Hamilton ... Hamilton remained in the lead after the safety car was called in, it was Mercedes' own choice (blunder) to remain on old tires (even with the full expectation that the race would end under green, as argued above and demonstrated on the Mercedes radio) ... and, for all we know, Masi (et al) was expecting Hamilton to follow-thru on his word to "repeat Silverstone" if Verstappen tried to pass. I suppose you can argue that it was unfair to the cars that didn't get to unlap ... but they're not the ones complaining, right?


EDIT: one can ask it this way: Why would Masi break the pre-race agreement, and deny fans the "exciting racing" advocated by Mercedes themselves ... just because Mercedes failed to put new tires on Hamilton's car? Would that have been "fair" to all teams that agreed to finish under green (if at all possible)?

 

Frankly I think this is only a big deal for Lewis, the BBC (and other English language press, mostly parroting the Brit press) and that other “influential figure” of F1, Trevor Noah; the latter obviously only interested in stirring the pot. Nobody else cares. The majority of fans, I would say, are just anxious for the new season to get underway with the new cars.

Masi I don’t think will be affected—at least I would like to think he won’t be—because if any fault was found in the execution of his duties, it’s the procedure that needs to be addressed, not the individual.

Accusations of Masi favouring one driver over another—or better yet, of being able to predict a winner with all the possible strategic permutations—is laughable and downright slanderous. If Merc and HAM are trying to get him fired on charges of prejudice against one driver I think they could expect a legal fightback.

 

Exactly. It's not his fault the rules are written and allow him to do certain actions.

 

I am sure Mr V will not lose any sleep over my comments or seek any comfort from yours either! ...............Dont get so hysterical about it, its a discussion board not a boxing ring!

Best
Tony

 

Perhaps they [the ones you are ridiculing] are Mercedes fans, or Red Bull or heaven forbid Scuderia Ferrari fans ( on a Ferrari forum no less )

Some of us like the tekkie part of F! and dont give a flying pig for the prima donnas.

Best
Tony

 

1. Unprecedented rulings happen in motorsports officiating all the time. Everything has to have a first of it' kind. It was unprecedented to DSQ Schumacher from a WDC completely, but they did it. It was unprecedented to exclude McLaren from the constructors, but they did it. It was unprecedented to financially sanction Ferrari for team orders when they were legal in 02'. Welcome to racing. This is small potatoes.

2. Rather than a judge, the better analogy is that Masi is a police officer directing traffic. If he tells you to stop, you stop. If he tells one group of cars to go, they go. If he instructs another to stay stopped, they stay stopped. If he tells you to go, you go. No arguing, no bitching. He is the law in that circumstance. It is the stewards who are the judges, and in this case they upheld Masi as acting within his authority as a cop.

3. What was different about the final yellow is that a world driving title was on the line. Yes, that does matter. Motorsports series around the world that have existed for decades have altered protocol at late race yellows, to insure a green flag finish for the fans, especially championship deciders. Indycar, NASCAR, IMSA, Champ Car, etc, have all done what F1 did before at one time or another.

4. After the races in Bahrain the previous year ended under the safety car, teams complained that F1 should take a page from the book of other racing series, and go to greater lengths in the future to insure a green flag finish. This is what the teams implored Masi to do, and that is why only Mercedes protested the results of the final race.

5. The fact remains that what Masi did was well within his authority, was what the teams asked for, and is non-appealable decision. It's final, even if some people find it "unfair". It should not be subject to social media pressure campaigns, because one team and driver had a strategy that depended on their competitor being nowhere near their gearbox under any green flag at the end of the race.

 

Petition · Overturn the decision of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Lewis should be the winner. · Change.org

With roughly 40 million followers, only 67000 care enough to sign the petition. This has been up for nearly 7 weeks now.

0.17% of Lewis' fans believe he's been robbed.

 

Patrick, another great post! Thanks again.