I think he's referring to the way 48.13 "over-rides" 48.12 (direct quote, from the pro-Hamilton stewards) ... but he might be referring to the way Hamilton's team "over-rode" his wish for fresh tires at Abu Dhabi
You well know anything could happen on the last lap of an F1 race...Mercedes fell asleep thinking they had the win in the bag, while Red Bull took every step possible to maximize (emphasis on MAX ) their chances under the conditions with the safety car. And as far as letting the lapped cars through, granted not all had the opportunity to get through, but under the conditions, Masi felt the ones that were in the way of the title race should get out of the way, as what would of happened had the safety car been deployed 10 laps earlier. Does anyone know when a safety car was last deployed and lapped cars remained between the leading cars when the race resumed? Had there been 3 more laps of racing with all the lapped cars through, Max would have still got by Lewis with the strategy they used.
Lewis' fans just need some hemorrhoid cream. There have been many many last lap championship-deciding incidents over the years and the only thing they prove is that you can't please all the people all the time.
So isn't this blatantly unfair to Sainz? Why couldn't he fight for the win? Is this sport or pantomime?
You fail to understand that it's not a Hamilton v. Verstappen issue, but one of the race director interfering with the outcome of a race.
Wait are you saying there were more than 2 drivers in the race? I guess someone forgot to tell Masi that
His job was to see that it was a race at the end, and not a safety car parade. He did his job. As others have said, Lewis lost because Mercedes choked and didn't change tires. If the race director had made his decision three laps earlier, Lewis would still have lost and Max won because Red Bull made the smarter bet. That only five were were let through vs the whole field meant nothing to the outcome. Everyone has to suck it up and stop coming up with "Lewis was robbed" BS.
Conflicting argument here: You're saying that Lewis couldnt' defend against max because "old tyres" But Sainz, on old tyres, had the possibility to win the race on similarly old tyres? In the Ferrari that has been struggling with tyre wear all season? Sainz also managed to defend from Yuki, who had pitted for softs. And no, Sainz didn't have backmarkers between him and Yuki at the restart.
Well, Yuki couldn't even overtake Sainz who had old tyres on, so I think that possibility was minuscule at best. The point is, even IF all cars where unlapped, for any positions that mattered (podium), ZERO would've changed. And lets be very honest here, to any of those "wronged" in the lower positions and just outside the top 10, would an (extra) point really have been the lifechanging experience for them? A big fat no, with the notable exception of Mick schumacher...but with the guys ahead of him all on softs as well, and he couldn't overtake stroll either, I think the possibility of points where frankly impossible. So absolutely NOTHING changed if ANY or ALL cars could unlap. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The Hamilton fans remain upset because Max won and Lewis lost, pure and simple. They pretend it was about "safety car injustice", but as discussed till the end of time already, safety car and unlapping is no new thing. What they wanted instead was for no cars to be unlapped, or even better, the race to finish under safety car. Thereby echoing the actions of their heroes Lewis and Toto, grand claims about wanting to race, but always complaining when actual racing actually happens.
Sure, but he was over 5 seconds behind also nursing worn out tires, having only made one pit stop during the race.
This thread never ceases to go off topic with the aim of justifying Masi's actions. At the end of the day regardless of who you are rooting for or who your favorites are, Masi is an official appointed by the FIA to impartially apply the regulations. He is essentially the referee and his overriding ethos must be to treat all of the competitors EQUALLY. Drivers fighting for the world championship are no more important than any other competing in the same race. By only letting the drivers who were in the way of 1st and 2nd and not from any other position is about as blatant an example of inequitable rule application as I have ever seen in any sport ever. For all of those out there who think Masi was in the right, can you please explain to me how is it justifiable that an appointed official apply one set of rules to some drivers and a different set of rules to others? Hiding behind excuses like Masi did not have enough time, or the rules allow him to do whatever he wants is complete and total nonsense. None of that explains or justifies the very simple idea that sport can never be fair when the rules are different from one competitor to the other.
Andrew Shovlin, speaking for Mercedes, answered your question about 10 years ago ... while explaining the "intent" or "spirit" of unlapping: "This will have two important effects, firstly the cars directly behind the safety will line up in actual race order so when the race restarts they are in a position to overtake each other. Secondly, the majority of the field will be on the same racing lap, bunched together and with some of the cars on new tyres. Together with the DRS, this should create exciting racing in the midfield where cars on older tyres will be ahead of cars that have stopped for fresh rubber who are trying to battle their way up the order for points.” When Shovlin used the word "majority", I'm sure he wasn't feeling the need for the entire field to wait ... as an extreme example ... for a solitary back-marker lapped twice (yes, it's happened) to unlap himself. The message, articulated quite well by Mercedes (above), couldn't be more clear: the entire population of lapped cars does not need to un-lap, always, in order to achieve the goals of "bunching-up cars", allowing cars on "fresh rubber" to challenge cars on "older tyres", in order to "create exciting racing". The rules, as written, fully support this "intent" ... by giving the Race Director the over-riding authority to unlap the "majority" of the field.
At no point did he say regulations shouldnt be followed or that any means just between first and 2nd, and that 3rd, 4th and 5th and so on do not matter, if the if all unlapped cars are let past and they dont catch up by following lap then tough, but they should be given the same chance as every one else.... Masi is not supposed to change rules unless for safety only, any other reason also breaks the rules, and his so called fix broke the first rule of the FIA internation sporting regulation by making sure all his decisions are done with safety and sporting fairnes as his main and only priority. a sport isnt a sport with out sporting integrity.
No rules were broken. I've already quoted Shovlin (Mercedes) on the "spirit" or "intent" of the unlapping rule (just above) ... here's the stewards on the "letter" of the rules: "Having considered the various statements made by the parties the Stewards determine the following: That Article 15.3 allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in our determination includes its deployment and withdrawal. That although Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning to the pits at the end of the following lap, Article 48.13 overrides that and once the message "Safety Car in this lap" has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end of that lap." Again, the language is quite clear: 48.13 over-rides 48.12, and 15.3 over-rides everything relating to the safety car. Also note the use of the word "may" by the stewards ... entirely consistent with the word "majority" used by Shovlin (of course, the stewards probably also used the word "may" because of the ambiguous language in 48.12 ... an ambiguity which the Race Director has full authority to resolve). The "spirit" or "intent" of the rules, expressed by Shovlin, is entirely consistent with the "letter" of the rules, interpreted by the stewards. Masi had full authority to act as he did, and no rules were broken.
No, becuase it had nothing to do with safety so he had no right to change any thing, as he is forbiden to change any rule during any part of the championship for any reason other than improvement of SAFETY. its black and white written in the regs, 1.2 These Sporting Regulations apply to the whole calendar year referred to in the title, and to the Championship taking place within that calendar year (“the Championship”). Any changes made by the FIA for safety reasons may come into effect without notice or delay. 2.1 All drivers, Competitors and officials participating in the Championship undertake, on behalf of themselves, their employees, agents and suppliers, to observe all the provisions as supplemented or amended of the International Sporting Code (the Code), the Formula One Technical Regulations (Technical Regulations), the Formula One Financial Regulations (Financial Regulations) and the present Sporting Regulations together referred to as “the Regulations” the international sporting regualtions 1.1.1 The FIA shall be the sole international sporting authority entitled to make and enforce regulations based on the fundamental principles of safety and sporting fairness, for the encouragement and control of automobile Competitions, and to organise FIA International Championships. Thats for the authenticity of the race and championship as written in the f1 sporting regulations the ones for which he is supposed to obey at all times cant not be changed by any one, its the fundematals of every racing series for which the FIA govern, so pretty much all apart from a hand full.... Also 2.1.5.a Any Competition or proposed Competition not organised in conformity with the Code or with the rules of the appropriate ASN shall be considered as not being recognised. So it finished under unofficial rules... Really want to keep trying to convince people of sporting integrity that what Masi did was the right thing to do?....... your digging a hole. None cares max is champion congrats ( He deserves it ) , none are unhappy LH lost ( any 1?? im happy about it tbh being a big Ferrari, MSC and Leclerc fan.... ) But what i do care about is that i am watching a sport built on sporting fariness so i know my many hours of following and paying to watch and attending races that it isnt going to end or be done to a script, i want to watch MOTOR SPORT, not a motor racing SHOW. thats why people are unhappy. why is it hard to understand that....
When it is written that one rule, or one authority, may over-ride another ... no rule is "broken" when that authority is exercised This is the hierarchy, written into the rules: - 15.3 over-rides 48.13, and 48.13 over-rides 48.12 - The Race Director over-rides the race-clerk Nothing "unfair" has happened, nothing "unofficial" has happened, when authority given by the rules is exercised. Even the pro-Hamilton stewards know this, and have written and ruled accordingly. The only one digging a hole is you ... Hamilton lost, therefore rules must have been broken, right? But the sad truth is that the pro-Hamilton stewards disagree with you. Even Andrew Shovlin, speaking for Mercedes (!), disagrees with you. You can keep digging and crying that rules were broken ... but all of the hissy-fits and temper-tantrums won't make it true. Just for fun: Please read 15.3, and you'll see that the phrase "in accordance with the Sporting Regulations" is absent from sections d and e (use of the safety car), but present for a, b, and c. Then tell us again, how the "over-riding authority" of the Race Director is as limited as you suggest, in the use of the safety car.
