Racing: 2021 Formula 1 Season

[FiveTacos]

I have. And I have no idea how you can interpret it any differently.

Then show me where it says that 48.13 takes precedence over 48.12.

Or if you interpret 15.3 as the race director having the authority to make the decision that 48.13 was to be enforced and could just ignore 48.12 (though it clearly states his only authority is as final authority over clerk of the course, not to ignore rules at his own discretion), then you would also have to argue that he had the authority to ignore 48.13 as well and could have kept the SC out there in order to comply with 48.12.

Basically the only argument you could make for your interpetation is that none of the SC rules actually are rules, and it's completely at the whim of the race director. In which case, why have any rules for the SC at all beyond "The race director shall have complete authority over safety car implementation, to be determined during the course of each race." If they did that, no one would ever have any reason to complain about anything, since it's always up to him.

Also if this was all perfectly normal, then show me another example of a race director allowing the safety car to come in on the same lap he allows lapped cars through ... and also show me an instance of where the cars between P2 and P1 were let through but not the ones between p3 and p2. Should be easy to do if it's all by the book, as many late safety cars have happened over the years.

 

[NyQuil]

Even if he did give the place back, Lewis’ pace was vastly superior and would have caught Max within a few laps.

Probably, but the FIA never asked him to do it for whatever reason.

the decision by Masi literally handed Max the WDC out of thin air.

Absolutely.

Decision-making over the last few races has been all over the place.

 

[CharlesPuck]

Then show me where it says that 48.13 takes precedence over 48.12.

Or if you interpret 15.3 as the race director having the authority to make the decision that 48.13 was to be enforced and could just ignore 48.12 (though it clearly states his only authority is as final authority over clerk of the course, not to ignore rules at his own discretion), then you would also have to argue that he had the authority to ignore 48.13 as well and could have kept the SC out there in order to comply with 48.12.

Basically the only argument you could make for your interpetation is that none of the SC rules actually are rules, and it's completely at the whim of the race director. In which case, why have any rules for the SC at all beyond "The race director shall have complete authority over safety car implementation, to be determined during the course of each race." If they did that, no one would ever have any reason to complain about anything, since it's always up to him.

Also if this was all perfectly normal, then show me another example of a race director allowing the safety car to come in on the same lap he allows lapped cars through ... and also show me an instance of where the cars between P2 and P1 were let through but not the ones between p3 and p2. Should be easy to do if it's all by the book, as many late safety cars have happened over the years.

he’s gonna have one hell of a time trying to find those examples.


Maybe he can start with the 2020 Eifel GP and Masi’s comments after that races SC.

 

[WTG]

Then show me where it says that 48.13 takes precedence over 48.12.

Or if you interpret 15.3 as the race director having the authority to make the decision that 48.13 was to be enforced and could just ignore 48.12 (though it clearly states his only authority is as final authority over clerk of the course, not to ignore rules at his own discretion), then you would also have to argue that he had the authority to ignore 48.13 as well and could have kept the SC out there in order to comply with 48.12.

Basically the only argument you could make for your interpetation is that none of the SC rules actually are rules, and it's completely at the whim of the race director. In which case, why have any rules for the SC at all beyond "The race director shall have complete authority over safety car implementation, to be determined during the course of each race." If they did that, no one would ever have any reason to complain about anything, since it's always up to him.

Also if this was all perfectly normal, then show me another example of a race director allowing the safety car to come in on the same lap he allows lapped cars through ... and also show me an instance of where the cars between P2 and P1 were let through but not the ones between p3 and p2. Should be easy to do if it's all by the book, as many late safety cars have happened over the years.

Considering that the Mercedes own legal team dropped the lawsuit. You still feel you know better?

BTW its you that is making the argument FIA didn't follow the rules. The burden is on you to prove it. I can just point at the ruling.

 

[FiveTacos]

Considering that the Mercedes own legal team dropped the lawsuit. You still feel you know better?

In other words, you can't cite examples of either the legal language or real-world application.

 

[CharlesPuck]

Considering that the Mercedes own legal team dropped the lawsuit. You still feel you know better?

BTW its you that is making the argument FIA didn't follow the rules. The burden is on you to prove it. I can just point at the ruling.

How about a direct quote from Masi himself last year?

 

[WTG]

In other words, you can't cite examples of either the legal language or real-world application.

I don't need to, the ruling is clear. Onus is on you to prove that it was illegal. Something that not even the best sports lawyers even bother attempting.

Welcome to the real world.

 

[WTG]

How about a direct quote from Masi himself last year?

Does the quote change the rules?

 

[Flukeshot]

Not going to lie, I'm addicted to listening to Toto say "No Michael! No Mikey!"

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

 

[FiveTacos]

I don't need to, the ruling is clear. Onus is on you to prove that it was illegal.

The onus is not on the person to prove a negative. No, the onus is on you to show me where in the rules it says these specific things that it supposedly says, but in actuality does not. It should be a simple quote from the rulebook. Where does it say that rule 48.13 supersedes 48.12? And while it says the race director has authority over the clerk of the race with regards to the safety car, where in 15.3 does it say he can make arbitrary decisions on the safety car without regard to prior written SC rules? If the ruling is so clear, it should be an easy thing for you to show me where it says those things.

And again, just give me one, just ONE, example from F1 history where a safety car was called out, cars unlapped, and immediately the SC called back in instead of 1 lap later. Show me ONE example of the cars being removed from between P1 and P2 but not between P2 and P3. If it's entirely okay to do so, then why haven't we ever seen it done before?

Essentially if we are to believe the FIA, then in any race the director can call for a safety car at any time, regardless of level of incident ... there doesn't even have to be a crash. And then he can order some cars to go by and others not. And then he can arbitrarily lengthen or shorten the SC period at a whim. And literally needs zero justification, because his authority is above and beyond any other written rules regarding SC procedures. You don't find that position patently ridiculous for a major sport? That's like saying that an NHL referee can call any penalty any time whether he sees anything or not, and when he does so the rules for what's a minor or major penalty are mere guidelines, so he can decide a routine tripping is worthy of a double major and a game misconduct if he feels like it makes for a more exciting ending. Oh and if the team doesn't score on the PP, he can just tack on another PP if he wants, just because he's the ref. Maybe stop the clock and award a couple penalty shots for kicks. That's the kind of explanation you want to accept as perfectly normal.

For a sport where racers have been disqualified for too many millimeters of wear on the floor plank, you really think the race director should do whatever he wants with regards to the SC rules?

Something that not even the best sports lawyers even bother attempting.

Welcome to the real world.

Hey look everyone, college boy wants to talk about the real world.

In the real world, high powered lawyers cost a lot, and in the real world there's zero money in the WDC, only the WCC. In the real world, it'd be far worse for the FIA to admit an error and have to reverse an outcome, than to just throw out some lame justification.

Truthfully, I don't give a rat's ass who wins the WDC, since it's always been a constructor's series anyway, and I follow the sport as such. But I guarantee you, if the result had swung the constructor's title and therefore there was tens of millions of dollars of prize money on the line, you'd better believe Mercedes would fight tooth and nail. But in the end the WDC is just a trophy, and Lewis or Max winning WDC is ultimately inconsequential in the context of what is in the end a team sport, not an individual one.

 

[bluesfan94]

Not really. He was avoiding a late lunge by Max. His alternative was getting taken out lap 1 and losing the WDC right then.


Even if he did give the place back, Lewis’ pace was vastly superior and would have caught Max within a few laps.

the decision by Masi literally handed Max the WDC out of thin air.

The whole race plays out differently. You can’t just say he would have passed him anyway so oh well. Otherwise I can say that max on fresher softs would have just passed blue flagged cars in between so oh well.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

The onus is not on the person to prove a negative. No, the onus is on you to show me where in the rules it says these specific things that it supposedly says, but in actuality does not. It should be a simple quote from the rulebook. Where does it say that rule 48.13 supersedes 48.12? And while it says the race director has authority over the clerk of the race with regards to the safety car, where in 15.3 does it say he can make arbitrary decisions on the safety car without regard to prior written SC rules? If the ruling is so clear, it should be an easy thing for you to show me where it says those things.

And again, just give me one, just ONE, example from F1 history where a safety car was called out, cars unlapped, and immediately the SC called back in instead of 1 lap later. Show me ONE example of the cars being removed from between P1 and P2 but not between P2 and P3. If it's entirely okay to do so, then why haven't we ever seen it done before?

Essentially if we are to believe the FIA, then in any race the director can call for a safety car at any time, regardless of level of incident ... there doesn't even have to be a crash. And then he can order some cars to go by and others not. And then he can arbitrarily lengthen or shorten the SC period at a whim. And literally needs zero justification, because his authority is above and beyond any other written rules regarding SC procedures. You don't find that position patently ridiculous for a major sport? That's like saying that an NHL referee can call any penalty any time whether he sees anything or not, and when he does so the rules for what's a minor or major penalty are mere guidelines, so he can decide a routine tripping is worthy of a double major and a game misconduct if he feels like it makes for a more exciting ending. Oh and if the team doesn't score on the PP, he can just tack on another PP if he wants, just because he's the ref. Maybe stop the clock and award a couple penalty shots for kicks. That's the kind of explanation you want to accept as perfectly normal.

For a sport where racers have been disqualified for too many millimeters of wear on the floor plank, you really think the race director should do whatever he wants with regards to the SC rules?



Hey look everyone, college boy wants to talk about the real world.

In the real world, high powered lawyers cost a lot, and in the real world there's zero money in the WDC, only the WCC. In the real world, it'd be far worse for the FIA to admit an error and have to reverse an outcome, than to just throw out some lame justification.

Truthfully, I don't give a rat's ass who wins the WDC, since it's always been a constructor's series anyway, and I follow the sport as such. But I guarantee you, if the result had swung the constructor's title and therefore there was tens of millions of dollars of prize money on the line, you'd better believe Mercedes would fight tooth and nail. But in the end the WDC is just a trophy, and Lewis or Max winning WDC is ultimately inconsequential in the context of what is in the end a team sport, not an individual one.

Your NHL analogy doesn't work because theres no where in the NHL rulebook giving a ref that authority to give a double major and such for a trip.

Where there is a section in the FIA rules allowing the race master to adjust accordingly.

And if Mercedes did lose the constructors on this, and decided to appeal it and everything.

Nothing still would of happened because of 15.3 giving Masi the authority to do whatever he wants.

 

[CharlesPuck]

The whole race plays out differently. You can’t just say he would have passed him anyway so oh well. Otherwise I can say that max on fresher softs would have just passed blue flagged cars in between so oh well.

Yawn. He was pulling away every lap. Lewis was much faster than Max.

good thing max had Masi there

 

[bluesfan94]

Also 48.12 says any, not all, which is an important distinction. So if the race director thinks only certain cars can unlap themselves prior to the end of the safety car (as determined by 48.13), there’s a rational legal explanation for the decision. You’re welcome to not be happy about it, but the rationalization exists.

 

[bluesfan94]

Yawn. He was pulling away every lap. Lewis was much faster than Max.

good thing max had Masi there

Sure, but maybe max manages enough defensive driving or maybe the pitting strategy changes or maybe Lewis’s car doesn’t handle dirty air as well, or insert a million other scenarios here.

 

[WTG]

The onus is not on the person to prove a negative. No, the onus is on you to show me where in the rules it says these specific things that it supposedly says, but in actuality does not. It should be a simple quote from the rulebook. Where does it say that rule 48.13 supersedes 48.12? And while it says the race director has authority over the clerk of the race with regards to the safety car, where in 15.3 does it say he can make arbitrary decisions on the safety car without regard to prior written SC rules? If the ruling is so clear, it should be an easy thing for you to show me where it says those things.

And again, just give me one, just ONE, example from F1 history where a safety car was called out, cars unlapped, and immediately the SC called back in instead of 1 lap later. Show me ONE example of the cars being removed from between P1 and P2 but not between P2 and P3. If it's entirely okay to do so, then why haven't we ever seen it done before?

You -> FIA not following the rules
Me -> FIA clarified and explained which rules they used

But I'm supposed to prove to you why the FIA didn't f*** up? You then want me to find a hyper-specific example of an event that happened as some sort of gotcha. I'm not gonna play along.

Here's the website and email so you can send an email to Mercedes where you explain why the FIA f***ed up and that you, over all their legal team, knows better.
Contact EN

Essentially if we are to believe the FIA, then in any race the director can call for a safety car at any time, regardless of level of incident ... there doesn't even have to be a crash. And then he can order some cars to go by and others not. And then he can arbitrarily lengthen or shorten the SC period at a whim. And literally needs zero justification, because his authority is above and beyond any other written rules regarding SC procedures. You don't find that position patently ridiculous for a major sport? That's like saying that an NHL referee can call any penalty any time whether he sees anything or not, and when he does so the rules for what's a minor or major penalty are mere guidelines, so he can decide a routine tripping is worthy of a double major and a game misconduct if he feels like it makes for a more exciting ending. Oh and if the team doesn't score on the PP, he can just tack on another PP if he wants, just because he's the ref. Maybe stop the clock and award a couple penalty shots for kicks. That's the kind of explanation you want to accept as perfectly normal.

For a sport where racers have been disqualified for too many millimeters of wear on the floor plank, you really think the race director should do whatever he wants with regards to the SC rules?

Did you even read the ruling? All teams agreed they wanted the race to, if possible, finish under green conditions. Backmarkers were removed to not intervene with the race leaders. The ruling also clearly states that 14.13 OVERRIDES 14.12.


Just incase you didn't read it already.

Hey look everyone, college boy wants to talk about the real world.

In the real world, high powered lawyers cost a lot, and in the real world there's zero money in the WDC, only the WCC. In the real world, it'd be far worse for the FIA to admit an error and have to reverse an outcome, than to just throw out some lame justification.

Truthfully, I don't give a rat's ass who wins the WDC, since it's always been a constructor's series anyway, and I follow the sport as such. But I guarantee you, if the result had swung the constructor's title and therefore there was tens of millions of dollars of prize money on the line, you'd better believe Mercedes would fight tooth and nail. But in the end the WDC is just a trophy, and Lewis or Max winning WDC is ultimately inconsequential in the context of what is in the end a team sport, not an individual one.

 

[NyQuil]

Sure, but maybe max manages enough defensive driving or maybe the pitting strategy changes or maybe Lewis’s car doesn’t handle dirty air as well, or insert a million other scenarios here.

It doesn't matter what would have happened, the fact remains that Hamilton passed Max while off the track just as Verstappen did in the previous race, only they didn't penalize him.

The inconsistency all season long as been annoying, for both drivers.

 

[bluesfan94]

It doesn't matter what would have happened, the fact remains that Hamilton passed Max while off the track just as Verstappen did in the previous race, only they didn't penalize him.

The inconsistency all season long as been annoying, for both drivers.

I agree with you 100%

 

[Natey]

The way I see is that there was so many "eh" decisions all year, that this doesn't really change things. Even the crap at the start of the race with Hamilton I thought was bullshit. And I'm neither a Verstappen or Lewis fan.

 

[FiveTacos]

You -> FIA not following the rules
Me -> FIA clarified and explained which rules they used

The problem is when you read the rules they used, it doesn't say what they claim it says. 15.3 says race director has authority over the safety car, but not that he can do so without regard to the rules outlined in section 48.

But let's say that we accept that he has overarching authority to arbitrate what rules to follow and what not to. Then by that reasoning, he is not bound by 48.13 either in that the safety car had to come in that lap.

Here is the sporting regulations... go read 48.13 ... show me where it says it takes precedence over 48.12 (hint, it does not):

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/f...porting_regulations_-_iss_13_-_2021-12-08.pdf

But I'm supposed to prove to you why the FIA didn't f*** up? You then want me to find a hyper-specific example of an event that happened as some sort of gotcha. I'm not gonna play along.

I'm asking you for one example of where a safety car was deployed yet regulations on safety car deployment were not followed because a race director picked and chose what to do. (hint: you won't find one). It shouldn't be hard if it's such a common thing.

Did you even read the ruling? All teams agreed they wanted the race to, if possible, finish under green conditions.

Keyword being "if possible." But does that not imply "within the regulations?" If Olympic hockey teams say they wanted to finish games without a shootout if possible, it doesn't mean the ref can arbitrarily decide to have them play unlimited OTs instead. You'd have to change the regulations and have agreement from everyone involved.

Backmarkers were removed to not intervene with the race leaders.

SOME backmarkers were removed. The ones that would have changed the outcome of a race for two competitors, but no one else.

Why is Carlos Sainz not considered a race leader? They gave no explanation as to why Max was allowed a shot to win but not Carlos, in removing only some but not all cars from between the race leaders. He had a chance to win the race, too. Why were only some cars given the message to go and others not?

This is 48.12:

If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car. This will only apply to cars that were lapped at the time they crossed the Line at the end of the lap during which they crossed the first Safety Car line for the second time after the safety car was deployed. Having overtaken the cars on the lead lap and the safety car these cars should then proceed around the track at an appropriate speed, without overtaking, and make every effort to take up position at the back of the line of cars behind the safety car. Whilst they are overtaking, and in order to ensure this may be carried out safely, the cars on the lead lap must always stay on the racing line unless deviating from it is unavoidable. Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap.

I don't know on what planet this could be read as the race director decides only some cars go and others stay.

The ruling also clearly states that 14.13 OVERRIDES 14.12.

The RULING states that ... but not the rule itself. You'd think that a sport where millimeters are specified and enforced would explicitly state that 48.13 overrides 48.12 if it were true.

And again, if you're believing that 15.3 gives him the authority to override any and all regulations at any time by his own interpretation, and clearly not for either safety or competitive reasons, then what's the point in having section 48 in the regulations at all? SC rules could be boiled down to 1 line ... "Race director makes all rules and decisions with regard to the SC." If that were the rule, there'd be no controversy, and I'd have no issues with rules being ignored. It'd be stupid, but at least the "rules" would have been followed.

In the end, the race director has two responsibilites:
1) safety
2) fairness

In the way the SC was handled, 1 was fulfilled. But frankly, 2 was ignored, and not just for Lewis/Max. And it was well within his power to not have that be the case.

BTW, if you're going to pretend you read everything, you might want to get your references to the regulation # right. Good tip for college AND the "real world."

 

[Tobias Kahun]

The problem is when you read the rules they used, it doesn't say what they claim it says. 15.3 says race director has authority over the safety car, but not that he can do so without regard to the rules outlined in section 48.

But let's say that we accept that he has overarching authority to arbitrate what rules to follow and what not to. Then by that reasoning, he is not bound by 48.13 either in that the safety car had to come in that lap.

Here is the sporting regulations... go read 48.13 ... show me where it says it takes precedence over 48.12 (hint, it does not):

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/f...porting_regulations_-_iss_13_-_2021-12-08.pdf



I'm asking you for one example of where a safety car was deployed yet regulations on safety car deployment were not followed because a race director picked and chose what to do. (hint: you won't find one). It shouldn't be hard if it's such a common thing.



Keyword being "if possible." But does that not imply "within the regulations?" If Olympic hockey teams say they wanted to finish games without a shootout if possible, it doesn't mean the ref can arbitrarily decide to have them play unlimited OTs instead. You'd have to change the regulations and have agreement from everyone involved.



SOME backmarkers were removed. The ones that would have changed the outcome of a race for two competitors, but no one else.

Why is Carlos Sainz not considered a race leader? They gave no explanation as to why Max was allowed a shot to win but not Carlos, in removing only some but not all cars from between the race leaders. He had a chance to win the race, too. Why were only some cars given the message to go and others not?

This is 48.12:

If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car. This will only apply to cars that were lapped at the time they crossed the Line at the end of the lap during which they crossed the first Safety Car line for the second time after the safety car was deployed. Having overtaken the cars on the lead lap and the safety car these cars should then proceed around the track at an appropriate speed, without overtaking, and make every effort to take up position at the back of the line of cars behind the safety car. Whilst they are overtaking, and in order to ensure this may be carried out safely, the cars on the lead lap must always stay on the racing line unless deviating from it is unavoidable. Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap.

I don't know on what planet this could be read as the race director decides only some cars go and others stay.



The RULING states that ... but not the rule itself. You'd think that a sport where millimeters are specified and enforced would explicitly state that 48.13 overrides 48.12 if it were true.

And again, if you're believing that 15.3 gives him the authority to override any and all regulations at any time by his own interpretation, and clearly not for either safety or competitive reasons, then what's the point in having section 48 in the regulations at all? SC rules could be boiled down to 1 line ... "Race director makes all rules and decisions with regard to the SC." If that were the rule, there'd be no controversy, and I'd have no issues with rules being ignored. It'd be stupid, but at least the "rules" would have been followed.

In the end, the race director has two responsibilites:
1) safety
2) fairness

In the way the SC was handled, 1 was fulfilled. But frankly, 2 was ignored, and not just for Lewis/Max. And it was well within his power to not have that be the case.

BTW, if you're going to pretend you read everything, you might want to get your references to the regulation # right. Good tip for college AND the "real world."

Weird.

You would think with all this evidence that Mercedes wouldn't of dropped their appeal.

 

[J T Money]

Lost in all of the drama, Lattifi must feel awful.

 

[JoVel]

Lost in all of the drama, Lattifi must feel awful.

Quite a large amount of some really pathetic people have gone on to talk shit to his social media pages which is sadly not too surprising.

Hope he's doing alright and doesn't let it get to him. Regardless of what one thinks of him as a driver, he's an extremely nice guy. A good Canadian kid some would say.

 

[WTG]

BTW, if you're going to pretend you read everything, you might want to get your references to the regulation # right. Good tip for college AND the "real world."

Here is the ruling again. Because you can't seem to even bother reading it.

And here is the email to Mercedes where you can babble on to them about how you found the "secret rule change" that only you know.

"Here's how ̶T̶r̶u̶m̶p̶ Mercedes can still win!"

The reason I told you "welcome to the real world", is because right now you are in a fantasy land where you know better than everyone else. Go ahead, have the last word. I'm done engaging with you over this.