RJS1977 Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 My understanding is that the rule regarding reduced points for shortened races was rewritten last year following the debacle at Spa to stipulate that at least two racing laps should have taken place in order for any points to be awarded. Unfortunately the official charged with rewriting the rule missed out a vital phrase in the rewrite, leading to the situation today where if a race runs out of time, the full points are issued. I think most people in the paddock (including the stewards) had failed to appreciate this omission and assumed that reduced points would still apply. It sounds as if it was Johnny Herbert - himself an occasional driver steward - who noticed the change and realised that this meant Max was WDC (at least provisionally until tomorrow!). Credit to the officials though for following through according to this rule when the change was pointed out to them. I notice that even Christian Horner has said that he will be pushing for reinstatement of the correct wording next time the rules are reviewed. Incidentally, the official responsible for the rewrite was one M. Masi.... (To show that it isn't just F1 who make errors like this, I can remember some years ago on - I think - the American version of Robot Wars, one robot had a rapidly rotating flail arm. The opposing robot came out with a cardboard box on top with "A present for (name of robot)" written on it. The flail robot proceeded to open the "present" by attacking it with its flail, only for the contents of the box to turn out to be a net which entangled the flail and enabled the opposing robot to get close enough to flip it over. The owners of the flail robot appealed the result claiming that the rules stated that "entanglement devices" were not to be used. Their opponents pointed out that that particular rule was not included in the rules for that season, and the officials admitted that this was an accidental omission. IIRC a ruling was given that entanglement devices were still not to be used, and the match was re-run. The "entanglement" team were not punished as as they had competed according to the rules in good faith.) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted October 9, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 9, 2022 What a crock of S#it 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 From all the comments from team principals including Christian Horner, it’s clear that they all thought reduced points would be awarded and felt that the rule change had not done what had been intended. Pete the Elaner is right that the rules were clear but I suspect they will be rewritten so that they say what people thought they should say; last weekend there were similar comments when Singapore passed 75% distance - but it’s only now we find out! I think the stewards were relatively timely with the Leclerc penalty given it happened right before the end of the race and after Verstappen had already passed the chequered flag- something Steve Jones failed to get despite Max pointing it out 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 10 hours ago, EddieB said: If it was that clear and simple, then (as has been said) why did it take so long to “clarify” after the end of the race? With so many variables in play, it’s not surprising that even those conversant with the rules could be confused as to which permutation would be applied. When it became clear that the race would restart, and the time available, then the stewards should have known how points would be awarded - either from adherence to the rule book or having settled on a decision. They should then have communicated their decision, so that everyone - drivers, teams, commentators - knew what they were racing for as soon as they went into the restart procedure. The way things turned out, it smacked of another attempt to make the rules up “on the fly”, which clearly benefitted some more than others. That it turned out to the benefit of the same team and driver as the last attempt to make up rules as you go leaves something of a sour taste. The award of points was not a decision. It was explained in the rules. As a referee, I was taught to never explain the rules during a match. If a team (or player) has learned them, then that is an advantage they have learned fairly. Explaining them to the other party takes this advantage away. They are not hidden rules, they are openly published for everyone who is bothered enough to read them. As a TV viewer, I rely on the broadcasters to explain any unusual rules or judgments. It was these who failed to explain the awarding of points, not the stewards. The delay to Leclerc's penalty was a different matter entirely. This was a decision which was not finalised until the interviews. I have some sympathy with the stewards here. The incident was on the last lap & they were a lot quicker than usual to announce that they were investigating it. The routine now is to grab the drivers for an interview as soon as possible, which did not give much time for the stewards to discuss the incident among themselves. I feel that anyone who defends a position by leaving the track should be obliged to give it back or get a penalty. (I have said that many times). If the stewards had consistently ruled this way in the past, the drivers & teams would have expected the decision & the stewards would have felt more confident in making it more quickly. Any uncertainty from teams, drivers or media about the decision was due to stewards making weak decisions in the past. This time they got it right. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 7 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said: The award of points was not a decision. It was explained in the rules. As a referee, I was taught to never explain the rules during a match. If a team (or player) has learned them, then that is an advantage they have learned fairly. Explaining them to the other party takes this advantage away. They are not hidden rules, they are openly published for everyone who is bothered enough to read them. As a TV viewer, I rely on the broadcasters to explain any unusual rules or judgments. It was these who failed to explain the awarding of points, not the stewards. The delay to Leclerc's penalty was a different matter entirely. This was a decision which was not finalised until the interviews. I have some sympathy with the stewards here. The incident was on the last lap & they were a lot quicker than usual to announce that they were investigating it. The routine now is to grab the drivers for an interview as soon as possible, which did not give much time for the stewards to discuss the incident among themselves. I feel that anyone who defends a position by leaving the track should be obliged to give it back or get a penalty. (I have said that many times). If the stewards had consistently ruled this way in the past, the drivers & teams would have expected the decision & the stewards would have felt more confident in making it more quickly. Any uncertainty from teams, drivers or media about the decision was due to stewards making weak decisions in the past. This time they got it right. As much as I agree with, and respect your last two paragraphs, I felt that Perez was a good few meters behind going into the corner, a corner in which he could not have passed Leclerc anyway, and came out the other side the same distance behind, so no advantage / disadvantage either way, and by that time Leclerc had dirty tyres, and yet Perez still couldn't get passed. Max would still be World Champion, but just not yesterday. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said: The award of points was not a decision. It was explained in the rules. The delay to Leclerc's penalty was a different matter entirely. This was a decision which was not finalised until the interviews. I have some sympathy with the stewards here. The incident was on the last lap & they were a lot quicker than usual to announce that they were investigating it. The routine now is to grab the drivers for an interview as soon as possible, which did not give much time for the stewards to discuss the incident among themselves. Point taken. One of the drawbacks of watching edited highlights is not knowing the actual time interval between things shown sequentially - in this case the chequered flag and the post-race interviews. Together with utter confusion in the commentary box, it came across as a complete muddle - and let’s face it, there is plenty of precedent for that. Edited October 10, 2022 by EddieB 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 26 minutes ago, Andrew P said: As much as I agree with, and respect your last two paragraphs, I felt that Perez was a good few meters behind going into the corner, a corner in which he could not have passed Leclerc anyway, and came out the other side the same distance behind, so no advantage / disadvantage either way, and by that time Leclerc had dirty tyres, and yet Perez still couldn't get passed. Max would still be World Champion, but just not yesterday. Racing is supposed to be on the track. Leclerc left the track. He was not avoiding a collision either. That justified a penalty. Perez forced the error. He deserved to benefit from the error he forced. If Leclerc had done that in Singapore or Monaco, he would have crashed. If it was a plain right hander, Perez would have been through. Why bother having a chicane if you let drivers just cut it without penalising them? I would love to have seen Verstappen kept waiting until a later race to clinch the title, but I think the decision on Leclerc was fair & the awarded points for the race were by the rules. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 On 09/10/2022 at 08:16, Gareth Collier said: Trouble with Gasley was he approached under double waved yellows which meant he should be prepared to stop and they changed to red before he arrived yet he was going as fast as he could to catch the train up. The tractor probably shouldn't have been there but Gasley was ignoring the flags. Never should there be a service vehicle on the circuit while cars are still on track - the only exceptions being the safety car and the medical car attending an emergency. Flags or no flags, whatever speed Gasly was doing, there was no emergency requiring the deployment of a recovery vehicle before the track was clear of cars. Given the poor visibility and as the same circuit where Jules Bianchi was killed makes it totally inexcusable. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 4 minutes ago, EddieB said: Point taken. One of the drawbacks of watching edited highlights is not knowing the actual time interval between things shown sequentially - in this case the chequered flag and the post-race interviews. Together with utter confusion in the commentary box, it came across as a complete muddle. The interview procedure changed a few years ago. They used to interview the drivers after they had been awarded their trophies, but this changed so the interviews take place as soon as they get out of the cars. Confusion in the commentary box happens in most sports. Most people learn rules through hearsay. Most sports have rules or laws which cover unusual situations & few other than referees will know these. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 9 minutes ago, EddieB said: Never should there be a service vehicle on the circuit while cars are still on track - the only exceptions being the safety car and the medical car attending an emergency. Flags or no flags, whatever speed Gasly was doing, there was no emergency requiring the deployment of a recovery vehicle before the track was clear of cars. Given the poor visibility and as the same circuit where Jules Bianchi was killed makes it totally inexcusable. The drivers will discuss this with the FIA. If the recovery vehicles are not allowed on the track until all cars are off, this means that red flags will be more common. I am not expressing an opinion on whether this is good or bad. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 29 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said: Racing is supposed to be on the track. Leclerc left the track. He was not avoiding a collision either. That justified a penalty. Perez forced the error. He deserved to benefit from the error he forced. If Leclerc had done that in Singapore or Monaco, he would have crashed. If it was a plain right hander, Perez would have been through. Why bother having a chicane if you let drivers just cut it without penalising them? I would love to have seen Verstappen kept waiting until a later race to clinch the title, but I think the decision on Leclerc was fair & the awarded points for the race were by the rules. Yes, I agree with you, but having seen similar things in the past, (Vettel in Melbourne against Hamilton, and he was only panelised for re entering the track dangerously) I just questioned it. It was right, and probably fair. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 11 hours ago, RJS1977 said: My understanding is that the rule regarding reduced points for shortened races was rewritten last year following the debacle at Spa to stipulate that at least two racing laps should have taken place in order for any points to be awarded. Unfortunately the official charged with rewriting the rule missed out a vital phrase in the rewrite, leading to the situation today where if a race runs out of time, the full points are issued. I think most people in the paddock (including the stewards) had failed to appreciate this omission and assumed that reduced points would still apply. It sounds as if it was Johnny Herbert - himself an occasional driver steward - who noticed the change and realised that this meant Max was WDC (at least provisionally until tomorrow!). Credit to the officials though for following through according to this rule when the change was pointed out to them. I notice that even Christian Horner has said that he will be pushing for reinstatement of the correct wording next time the rules are reviewed. Incidentally, the official responsible for the rewrite was one M. Masi.... (To show that it isn't just F1 who make errors like this, I can remember some years ago on - I think - the American version of Robot Wars, one robot had a rapidly rotating flail arm. The opposing robot came out with a cardboard box on top with "A present for (name of robot)" written on it. The flail robot proceeded to open the "present" by attacking it with its flail, only for the contents of the box to turn out to be a net which entangled the flail and enabled the opposing robot to get close enough to flip it over. The owners of the flail robot appealed the result claiming that the rules stated that "entanglement devices" were not to be used. Their opponents pointed out that that particular rule was not included in the rules for that season, and the officials admitted that this was an accidental omission. IIRC a ruling was given that entanglement devices were still not to be used, and the match was re-run. The "entanglement" team were not punished as as they had competed according to the rules in good faith.) Part points are only awarded if the race is stopped & cannot be resumed. This aspect has not changed from last year. I have included the important sections of the rules below. The important point of each is that partial points are only awarded if the race is suspended & cannot be resumed. I like the rule as it is. If a race is stopped suddenly, then the strategy has not been played out, like red flagging it before the leading driver has made their last pit stop, which will put him into 2nd/3rd/4th place. Making the whole race shorter is different since strategies can be developed to work over the known distance. Last year: 6.5 If a race is suspended under Article 41, and cannot be resumed, no points will be awarded if the leader has completed two laps or less, half points will be awarded if the leader has completed more than two laps but less than 75% of the original race distance and full points will be awarded if the leader has completed 75% or more of the original race distance. If the formation lap is started behind the safety car (see Article 36.14 c)), the original race distance will be deemed to be the distance calculated in accordance with Article 5.3(c). However, the maximum race time of three (3) four hours (see Article 5.3 b) will commence at the scheduled race start time. This year: 6.5 If a race is suspended in accordance with Article 57, and cannot be resumed, points for each title will be awarded in accordance with the following criteria: a) No points will be awarded If the leader has completed less than two (2) laps. b) No points will be awarded unless a minimum of two (2) laps have been completed by the leader without a Safety Car and/or VSC intervention. c) If the leader has completed more than two (2) laps but less than 25% of the scheduled race distance, points will be awarded in accordance with column 1 of the table below. d) If the leader has completed 25% but less than 50% of the scheduled race distance, points will be awarded in accordance with column 2 of the table below. e) If the leader has completed 50% but less than 75% of the scheduled race distance, points will be awarded in accordance with column 3 of the table below. f) If the leader has completed 75% or more of the scheduled race distance, full points will be awarded in accordance with Article 6.4 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 2 minutes ago, Andrew P said: Yes, I agree with you, but having seen similar things in the past, (Vettel in Melbourne against Hamilton, and he was only panelised for re entering the track dangerously) I just questioned it. It was right, and probably fair. I would like the officials to draw a line, preferably after a season, stating that they have revised the rules, will be applying them more rigidly. Also that any decisions made in the past should not be used as a guide to what is fair or not. This would imply that some decisions in the past were, by their new standards, bad & they don't want to repeat the decisions just because they were made that way before. After the end of this season would be perfect timing. They were not appointed in time to make any changes this year, so just had to apply the rules they were given. Now they have been in place for a year, they could (& should) publish changes they feel will work. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 Shouldn't we be talking about the findings from the cost cap audits which are due to be announced later today? 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 Thought it was Wednesday, it seems to change daily?! Until they announce them there's nothing to discuss, though!! It'll be a whitewash anyhow... 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted October 10, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2022 (edited) I give up, F1 has finally lost all credibility for me. Off to look for some real motorsport that is competently managed and fairly contested. John Edited October 10, 2022 by Dunsignalling 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 18 minutes ago, Hobby said: Thought it was Wednesday, it seems to change daily?! Until they announce them there's nothing to discuss, though!! It'll be a whitewash anyhow... It was supposed to be last Wednesday, the deferred to today. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulleidboy100 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 Whatever the findings announced today, I cannot imagine Lewis Hamilton accepting the 2021 Championship in this way. I'm sure most of the hype is media driven (drivel??). 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Darius43 Posted October 10, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2022 1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said: Shouldn't we be talking about the findings from the cost cap audits which are due to be announced later today? Yes, when they are announced sometime today…or if they are… Cheers Darius 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted October 10, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2022 8 minutes ago, Bulleidboy100 said: Whatever the findings announced today, I cannot imagine Lewis Hamilton accepting the 2021 Championship in this way. I'm sure most of the hype is media driven (drivel??). Realistically, is anything dramatic ever going to be announced? Liberty will be anxious to keep their golden goose laying the right colour eggs, and the FIA disqualifying or otherwise discrediting a leading team is not in their interests. We have seen the results of their influence before - Masi - and the FIA will be left in no doubt that Liberty do not want problems. We have no idea how much Liberty pays the FIA in sweeteners, possibly quite overtly. As far as any driver is concerned - or at least those of consequence - they are paid 7/8-figure sums and have a tight contract to do what zillions of other younger males would kill for a chance to do. They are not going to step seriously out of line to embarrass the gravy-train that is their team, or impair their chances of continuing employment at this level. As others have said, the credibility of the sport has dropped off the graph - but it makes lots of people rich so why worry, eh? 1 8 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 2 hours ago, Oldddudders said: Realistically, is anything dramatic ever going to be announced? Liberty will be anxious to keep their golden goose laying the right colour eggs, and the FIA disqualifying or otherwise discrediting a leading team is not in their interests. We have seen the results of their influence before - Masi - and the FIA will be left in no doubt that Liberty do not want problems. We have no idea how much Liberty pays the FIA in sweeteners, possibly quite overtly. As far as any driver is concerned - or at least those of consequence - they are paid 7/8-figure sums and have a tight contract to do what zillions of other younger males would kill for a chance to do. They are not going to step seriously out of line to embarrass the gravy-train that is their team, or impair their chances of continuing employment at this level. As others have said, the credibility of the sport has dropped off the graph - but it makes lots of people rich so why worry, eh? Eloquently put as always Ian, and strait to the point. 👍 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium SR71 Posted October 10, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 10, 2022 Silence. Seems like someone is waiting until 17:29 to press send and shut their PC down. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
didcot Posted October 10, 2022 Author Share Posted October 10, 2022 (edited) https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/12717388/red-bull-found-in-minor-breach-of-formula-1-cost-cap-no-punishment-revealed-yet The cynic in me thinks they will get off! Edited October 10, 2022 by didcot 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 You don't gave to be a cynic to know that, it's a certainty. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 GUILTY. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/63204082 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now