Thank you. I too enjoy the discussion and I have zero intentions of insulting anyone or getting nasty. I am ok to disagree but at the same time am totally willing to listen and evolve my ideas. Back to business let me address your post. The primary thing I would like to put forward is that I do not care who was advantaged by Masi's decisions. Nor do I have any issue with how Red Bull or Mercedes played their strategies. Each took their own gambles and the validity of those decisions are the place of another discussion. My interest lies in determining to what extent the decisions taken by Masi represented an impartial carrying out of the letter of the rules as well as the intent of the rules as a whole. Of course this is all under greater scrutiny given the people involved and that is just the way life is. Nobody would be talking about this if 10th place was affected (although they do have the right to be treated the same as the leader) which is also why you see examples in society where seemingly trivial things are given much more interest if certain people are involved. So the question then is 'who was it unfair to'? My answer is that it was unfair to the sport as a whole. Regardless of who was affected, when an official makes a decision that treats some competitors differently to others then it is a problem. Include the 2 protagonists in the championship and make a decision where the entire season result is affected and you really have a toxic situation. Again I pose the question, what was so exceptional about the yellow flag procedure that led to such an exceptional decision?
Some good points raised here that I'd like to challenge: 1. I agree that unprecedented rulings happen all the time. In all of the cited examples the rulings were a function of an unprecedented situation that in turn required an unprecedented ruling. This is the evolution of rules and I accept that. Again I repeat that there was nothing unprecedented about the last yellow flag in Abu Dhabi so there was no reason to do anything new or innovative to deal with it. 2. Well explained as the officer and stewards as judges. I'll just add that in this case the 'judges' are also part of the FIA which can cause huge conflicts of interest in determining an impartial ruling. 3. F1 has always been really strict about respecting the distance of the race. While other series have provisions built in to add time or do something special to end under yellow, F1 currently does not and nobody down the pitlane prepares for it. As such this would be a discussion of what can change in the future. In the present we can look to other series that have long established practices of using a pace car and letting lapped cars go around. In no series that I have ever watched or been a part of (and that is a LOT) have I ever seen a situation where some cars were singled out for lapping when others were not. It has always been ALL or NONE. 4. Again the teams want to end under green but not at any cost. Because no other teams protested does not mean they were not aggrieved. The season was over and typically there are less protests in the last race because the season is done. 5. The other strategies are of no interest to me nor should they be of the race director. Also the race director is under no requirement to finish under green but he is under a requirement to be fair and equitable to the competitors as the over-arching mandate of his position. Again this is not a Mercedes or RedBull thing. It is about the sport and its officiating.
Masi wanted to honor the pre-race agreement, and end the race under green ... if "at all possible". Masi was able to achieve this goal of a green finish, and honor the agreement with all teams, by acting fully within the scope of his authority, while breaking zero rules. So ... satisfying the pre-race agreement turned out to be "very possible" indeed! It would have been terribly unfair ... not just to all teams who wanted to end under green, but also to the fans ... if Masi had denied the teams and fans a green finish, simply because one team failed to change tires ... when that team had the same opportunity as everyone else to do so. It would be a different story if the pre-race agreement, or the choice that Masi made to honor it, were in violation of the rules. But, since everything that transpired was, indeed, within the scope of the rules-as-written (both the letter, and the spirit), honoring the agreement accepted by (if not in fact motivated by) all teams was the "fair" thing to do. PLEASE NOTE: nothing was "gifted" to Verstappen. No one, including Masi, could possibly know what the outcome of the race would be, with one final "green" lap (see: Silverstone). The only "gift" given by Masi was a gift given to the fans, and to ALL teams who agreed: one last green lap of the season.
This isn't a new element to racing at all. 2002 Indy 500 was controversial because there was never really a good view of when the caution light came on, and whether Tracy was ahead of Castroneves before or after the green. Regardless, the IRL made their ruling, it was final, and left went on. 1991 Sears Point is a good one. Ricky Rudd bumps into Davey Allison in the hairpin, spinning him out of the lead (accident), and NASCAR black flags him out of the win. Rudd's team tries to protest it, but NASCAR tells them their ruling is final and not appealable. Again, life went on. CART Surfers Paradise 2002. The circuit is a river to race on 1. Actually, there was something unprecedented about the final yellow in Abu Dhabi. F1 has only had one WDC title battle, which went down to the final race, where there was a late yellow in the final laps. In that scenario, there were 2.5 laps left, where as in Abu Dhabi there was 5.5, and clearly enough time to clean the incident up given how minor the debris was. That element is what was unprecedented. 2. Hey, that's true in real life. Judges work for the government at the end of the day. 3. I really don't understand the harping about the lapped cars. If the other three lapped cars were waived by, Max was still going to be on Hamilton's gearbox for the restart. That would have had absolutely no effect on the results. Sainz was also never going to get involved in the battle, had the McLaren been waived by him. Furthermore, it would've only taken a few seconds for the other three lapped cars to speed by like the other five did, so again, no change for the race restart and where the players would've been positioned.. Maybe Masi wanted those cars waived by and the call wasn't properly relayed, maybe it was an oversight, who knows. It's really small potatoes. 4. If Masi had done something unsafe, you'd have a point. But the track was clear and safe to go for the restart. Hell, they could've and should've gone green the lap before the last lap. Other drivers were wondering why the yellow was taking so long, actually. And it does matter that no other teams protested. Anybody that though they could've gained any extra point or podium would've been with Mercedes raising hell if they believed they were right. 5. There is no requirement to finish under the green, but there was a clear advocacy before self interests came into play, to have races end under the green. Had Masi just let the race end under yellow, he'd have been accused of purposefully dragging it out so that Lewis was protected from Max. He was in a no win situation, so he followed his sporting instincts, which were to let the drivers have one lap to settle it on the track. The fact that Mercedes had a strategy that depended on Max never getting to Hamilton's 43 lap old tires does not make the decision unsporting or unfair. Mercedes simply had bad luck at the end that destroyed their strategy, and that's all there really is to it. Cheers.
Again, I don't think this was the issue. I think all knew that LH was going to be in trouble, even with the initial ruling of Masi for cars to hold their positions for the restart. It was allowing only the cars between LH and MV to unlap themselves, and then immediately bringing in the safety car right after announcing that, which was problematic. This was the subjective decision he made that is resulting in all of the uproar. Had either a) all cars unlapped in a timely fashion or b) cars restarted in their current position without unlapping, all of the controversy wouldn't exist. Yes, some would be peeved to see LH lose in such fashion after a strong drive for most of the race, but there would have been nothing irregular in what Masi did. By choosing to acquiesce to Horner's demands and do a selective unlapping, he opened Pandora's Box in Abu Dhabi (I'm guessing he had some reluctance, but maybe not)
Well said Masi is being vilified for for giving the fans, and ALL of teams, exactly what they wanted and agreed to: a green finish in the last race of the season. He's being vilified by the one team, who failed to adequately prepare for that agreement to be fulfilled. No one knew the outcome ahead of time (again, see: Silverstone), the outcome was not "pre-ordained" ... that's why they resumed racing.
You’re giving the other drivers and teams too much credit for them giving a toss about Merc and HAM. They only care about themselves. Also, Masi will only be an irritant to the HAM sycophant press corps who will certainly be moaning about him into their echo-chamber.
Looks like this thread is going to stick around, so might as well contribute. Image Unavailable, Please Login
:yawn: All of that ^^ so-called "evidence" is laughable, unfounded and already refuted dozens of times in this thread (and by the stewards too, of course). Hamilton fans need some new material
I said this before and I'll say it again. If everything was faultless about Masi's actions as some claim here. We should see this happen again in the future. Because safety car rules are repeated over and over again every race. In fact If FIA say it is fautless they should change the rules to make clear that the race director can handpick cars to unlap whenever he desires. If this doesn't happen, we know it was wrong.
Funny take-aways from what's copied in post #1061: Regulation 15.3: "The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters: e) use of the safety car" (direct quote) Verstappen fan: regulation 15.3 gives the Race Director overriding authority on the use of the safety car. Hamilton fan: that's a ridiculous interpretation! LMAO wait ... there's more: Regulation 15.3 a) thru c): must be exercised "in accordance with other Sporting Regulations" (another direct quote) Regulation 15.3 d) and e) (use of safety car): no such qualifier or restriction exists Hamilton fan: The Race Director must direct the safety car in accordance with other Sporting Regulations. LMAO again SO ... in order to argue that Masi "broke the rules", the Hamilton fans copied in post #1061 MUST: - reject any direct quotations of the rules as "ridiculous interpretations" - re-write the rules to include qualifiers that just aren't there This is literally the gift that keeps on giving!! Please don't stop
And I ask again, what difference would those three cars being unlapped have realistically made? You understand that it wasn't matter of those cars couldn't have been waived by in time for the green, right? And you understand that Max still going to be on Hamilton's box in the scenario where all cars were lapped, right? Three cars not being unlapped did absolutely nothing to change the outcome of the event, period. It just didn't. Masi was always going to waive those lapped cars by the next lap. People misinterpreted his call that lapped cars weren't allowed to overtake the previous lap as being final, when if you actually listen to the radio, Masi doesn't argue with Horner he just tells him "I'm making sure the incident is clear". No matter what Hamilton fans were always going to be irate. Saw it before when they lost in 2007, accusing the FIA of a vast conspiracy against Hamilton, and again in 2016 when allegedly, Mercedes were sabotaging his engines. They do not know how to deal with racing not going their way. They just don't. I'm sorry, but in any other scenario with a driver besides Hamilton in the sitting duck position, this whole thing would've been over after a few days. I remember being embarrassed as a Ferrari fan, when they contemplated protesting the Brazil 2012 results, with their bone being that Vettel overtook under the safety car for a moment. Man, I thought that was petty, but this crap about 3 lapped cars? Going on for two friggin' months now? That is really, really petty.
It’s gotten pretty bad when you need to rely on what looks like a manifesto written by a deranged 12 year-old, LOL, complete with alternative facts such as: Silverstone was a “racing incident”—stated as a fact because of a “diagram”—even though HAM was assessed a penalty for causing as accident!! Brilliant.
Post #1061 really IS the gift that keeps on giving: Verstappen fan: In Abu Dhabi, lap one, Hamilton was allowed to gain a position by driving off-track. Hamilton fan: That's just part of the sport. The Race Director making up new rules to advantage a single driver is completely different.
Well, i guess my response could be considered a personal attack My apologies. I'll ban myself from the thread for a few days.
This from BBC: However, there is far from unanimity on the matter. Other teams are said be either ambivalent as to whether Masi stays or would have no problem with it, as long as a more effective support system was put in place around him. Red Bull denied that they had called for Masi to go. Ferrari said they were not aware of any such request. Mercedes, McLaren, Alpine, Aston Martin, Alfa Romeo and Haas were unavailable. Williams said it "does not believe it is for teams to decide FIA personnel".
