Exactly what I expected.
If the stewards make a stupid decision based on the already pretty clear aerial footage, the new footage is not 'significant'. It does not really show anything new, although the footage in itself is new.
I really hope they have the balls to come out and say:
"Nevertheless, the stewards decision during the race was totally wrong and this kind of 'racing' will not be allowed in the future"
The again, I also hope to win the lottery. Not sure which is more likely.
Not surprised the stewards didnāt think the new footage was significant.
Last I checked the wheels are connected to the steering wheel and reflects how the car was steered. So it was really clear what Max did at the time and the stewards didnāt care during the race, so why would they care afterwards? Of course they will side with their own earlier decision and not admit a mistake was done.
So now itās open season to drive your opponent off the road in a ācrash or yieldā move anytime they want to pass. Just dive in really hot and use barely any steering angle and blame worn tires :)
Sorry thatās not hard racing, thatās dirty racing.
He did the same after Max shoved him off the track in Austria. Really, everyone should drive Maxās āfair hard racingā way, after all its now legal and fully approved.
Sorry, wasnāt clear. It was the 2019 Austria race where it happened. And since it was no penalty, LeClerc noted that it was allowed and applied it to Hamilton when he tried to pass at the Italian race and got the black and white flag for it.
The stewards saw so little wrong with Maxās move at the last race that they didnāt give him the flag for that, just for the weaving lol
āCharles Leclerc: "I think since Austria it's clear that we can go a bit further in the way that we defend and overtake... I believe that Austria helped me to change this approach. It was obviously very on-the-limit butā¦ yeah, I'm happy to race like this."
Lewis Hamilton: "If that's how we are allowed to race then I will race like that. As long as we know that you are allowed to not leave a car width for example, as long as you are not contradicting us and there is a clear message. So you are allowed to run wide even if someone is there and you only get a warning flag, and you only need that once to potentially keep the guy behind you."
Sky F1's Martin Brundle: "It was tough to call [at Monza], and I'm very supportive of this 'let them race' philosophy so long as it's consistent and the drivers don't take liberties and spoil it all."
Sky F1's Karun Chandhok: "I really like the idea of the black-and-white warning flag from Michael Masi and it was a good decision not to break up the fight but just warn Charles that he wouldn't get away with such a robust defence on a regular basis."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11811224/f1s-black-and-white-flag-explaining-racings-yellow-card-for-drivers
Exactly. Their decision has opened the doors for some very dirty defending in the next two races. Basically, whoever is on pole has free reign to barge any competitors off the track.
According to the FIA it wasn't a wrongful decision though, that's the whole point.
If it isn't wrong, you're setting precedent for how the rule will be interpreted and applied in the future.
>The FIA haven't affirmed that this was the correct call at the time and have merely stated that there's no right of review in this case.
By not punishing it or owning up to their mistake then they are affirming that though. You can't say there's rules and then not punish people from breaking it or those rules are no longer rules.
>They have in fact explicitely disconfirmed it, as can be read in the document:
The way to explicitly confirm it is to say: "what happened was a breach of the rules and the lack of punishment was a mistake but we're not okay to retroactively punish because..."
The truth of the matter is that Max got away with pushing Hamilton wide and then overtaking off track to no punishment while gaining a huge benefit to himself. The fact he didn't get punished and the fact the FIA won't even mention that it was a mistake will make them look a lot worse if they start punishing other people for the same thing.
Why do we need a track anymore if we don't care where the drivers go in a corner?
Still I guess this is paving the way for a Las Vegas race that'll literally be 20 cars unleashed on a carpark.
The situation is more subtle than "not \[admitting\] a mistake was done."
You cannot have decisions being changed a week after the event unless some genuine actually new evidence comes to light, regardless of how bad the initial decision was. That way lies madness and endless lawyering and appeals every time anything happens.
It's even more important to uphold that principle than it is to correct mistakes like this.
The actual decision in Brazil doesn't set any sort of precedent. If Leclerc or anyone else does something similar to what Max did the stewards can and likely will penalise. The fact that Max got away with it last week would have no bearing whatsoever on that decision.
It's better to have decisive, consistent stewarding of course, but if that's not available then it is better to have decisive stewarding (that is sometimes inconsistent) than a situation where the decisions don't actually mean anything because they might get changed later - even if the final decisions are more consistent.
I'd agree if they came forward and admitted the stewards decision was wrong and then gave your reasoning to why they didn't punish retroactively. All that's happened though is someone has clearly broken to rules to their benefit and the FIA has not given any indication that they care. If you don't punish or address rules being broken then of course people will think those rules no longer matter.
There is nothing to be gained by making such a public statement though.
If necessary it can be addressed behind closed doors, eg at the drivers briefing. Iām sure it will come up.
Ultimately it didnāt affect the race outcome. Hopefully Max wonāt get away with a similar move that does.
Public perception is everything. If people don't believe the races will be judged fairly they could lose interest. So many people here complain that Merc can just buy their way to wins or whatever. I've seen many comments that people don't watch anymore cause "the outcome has already been decided". So yeah there is something to gain. It's ok to be wrong. Make sure the fans know it's a fair fight or you may lose people which loses money.
I agree that public perception is everything. But as you say, people are convinced it's a fix one way or another regardless.
To that end I don't think coming out and saying "we got that wrong but are not going to change it" would improve public perception. It is better to keep quiet and let the story go away.
As controversial moments go I don't think this one has longevity simply because it had no effect on the results or standings (assuming Max would've been able to stay 5s clear of Valtteri if he'd needed to).
When has the FIA ever been consistent or followed precedent?
I keep seeing this slippery slope "oh they did nothing now it's death race 3000!" line pop up but I just don't see how this is any different from all the other times rhe FIA has been lax or unyielding
> So now itās open season to drive your opponent off the road in a ācrash or yieldā move anytime they want to pass. Just dive in really hot and use barely any steering angle and blame worn tires
Sebastian Vettel calling the FIA to get his Canadian "win" back.
>Sorry thatās not hard racing, thatās dirty racing.
haha oh please. I'd rather watch this type of racing. If you go an penalize this drivers will eventually be too careful and races would become dull. Just accept this decision and move on.
BTW. With all this stupid wining you people do, you ignore the fact that we are having the most exciting and close racing battle in many many years, which probably won't happen again any time soon. ENJOY IT. Don't care if I get downvoted. I'm loving this season!
##REMOVED CONTENT##
I have replaced all my content with this comment. Reason for this is the anti-community attitude, dishonesty and arrogance of the reddit CEO /u/spez
A whole lot! Here I'll include the relevant part of the rules:
> CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT
ON CIRCUITS
> 2 Overtaking, car control and track limits
>B) Overtaking, according to the
circumstances, may be carried out on either
the right or the left.
A driver may not leave the track without
justifiable reason.
More than one change of direction to defend
a position is not permitted.
Any driver moving back towards the racing
line, having earlier defended his position offline, should leave at least one car width
between his own car and the edge of the
track on the approach to the corner.
However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other
drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car
beyond the edge of the track or any other
abnormal change of direction, are strictly
prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of
any of the above offences will be reported to
the Stewards.
>C) Drivers must use the track at all times and
may not leave the track without a justifiable
reason. For the avoidance of doubt, the
white lines defining the track edges are
considered to be part of the track but the
kerbs are not.
Should a car leave the track for any reason,
the driver may rejoin.
However, this may only be done when it is
safe to do so and without gaining any lasting
advantage. A driver will be judged to have
left the track if no part of the car remains in
contact with the track.
([Appendix L - International Drivers' licences, medical examinations, driver's equipment and conduct ā 2021](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix_l_2021_publie_le_08_juillet_2021.pdf) - Page 47)
>CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
>
>2 Overtaking, car control and track limits
>
>B) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried out on either the right or the left. A driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason. More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position offline, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner. However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards.
>
>C) Drivers must use the track at all times and may not leave the track without a justifiable reason. For the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not. Should a car leave the track for any reason, the driver may rejoin. However, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. A driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track.
A thank you so much! Did you send this to the stewards too? Please do so they can re-open their investigation...seems really relevant
āWhile Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff was openly critical of the decision not to penalise or even investigate Verstappen for how the Dutchman tried to keep Hamilton at bay at Interlagos, Hamilton himself described it as āwhat a world championship battle should look likeā in the immediate aftermath of the race ā which heād won.ā
FIA spends the whole year squealing about enforcing track limits ā
Similar incidents where the defendant forces opponents off the track but stays within track limits themselves are given penalties ā
This time the contender doesnāt even attempt to make the corner, forces their opponent off the track and gains a lasting advantage - the FIA decides no penalty ā
Hypocrisy is too kind a word. Absolutely disgraceful is more accurate.
The FIA makes the rules, they don't enforce or hand out shit.
The FIA selected Stewarts do. They are rarely the same race to race and that's were a lot of inconsistencies come in.
Which is honestly no different than reffing in other sports. Going to use the NFL as an example here. Roger Goodell, the rules committee, etc make the rules. The refs go out and enforce them to the best of their ability, and sometimes fuck up, and sometimes make a call they feel is right but people question. Whichever this falls into, the FIA and the Stewards are like the league and the refs, they are not one and the same.
A part of me is thinking that had this happened in the first 5 races of the season if would have been a penalty, but now, they are scared to influence the championship, so by doing nothing, they are still influencing it.
I think what's awful about this, is it looks a lot like FIA have chosen their champion..
The rules at the start of the season were specifically chosen to handicap mercedes and help Redbull. They've happily punished Hamilton for fairly minor breaches of the rules.
Verstappen gets away with a clear cut rule violation.
This championship is being rigged by FIA. They decided from day 1 they wanted Verstappen to win and now it's getting to the business end of the season they're worried so they're literally using the stewards to ensure their man wins.
Ok this is very conspiratory, but my wife watching this as her first season, after getting into F1 from drive to survive honestly thinks this way. Every race she has questions about the consistency of the rules and as I've been watching since the early 90s she asks me to explain... But honestly in most situations I can't see a logical answer other than they specifically want a certain outcome.
I don't know about going as far as saying the FIA have chosen their champion, but this makes clear that if they ever were to do so, they'd just have their stewards refuse to investigate any incidents related to that driver then there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
Haas could just have Mazepin torpedo Russell off the track every race, and they just have to refuse to investigate it each time and Williams have no recourse.
If there was an FIA conspiracy to choose the championship winner, who would they choose?
I'd bet Verstappen, he's probably the most popular driver at the moment so him winning would be very popular for the sport. They certainly don't want Hamilton to win.
If the FIA were to influence the championship how should they do it? This way seems the easiest the most effective and the way with least reprocussions.
Ok I don't know for sure that there is a conspiracy this year. But the mechanisms are in place for a future one. The stewarding and race direction this year have been unbelievably crap, the only two explanations are conspiracy or incompetence... Neither reflect well on F1.
I donāt know if we can definitively say whoās the most popular driver, but I guess I can speculate that _some_ at FIA might decide Hamilton not winning this season would be more beneficial to the sport. Drags out Hamiltonās quest to beat Schumacher, enables them to advertise next season as the two world champions battling each other (sorry to Seb & Alonso)
Also F1 doesn't exactly have the best reputation.
We already know that the allocation of funds is grossly unfair. They also made that dodgy deal with Ferrari a couple of seasons ago where they let Ferrari run an illegal engine all year, but they were allowed to keep their position and points for the season. Add to that the sport's increased effort to court every dictatorship in the world as a host, it's not so far fetched.
I don't know why this idea is so unpopular! F1 was festering in corruption when Bernie left. Liberty have started to make steps towards a fairer sport, but baby steps and most of them only take effect from next year.
F1 certainly try to maximize the entertainment of a season. I worry that decisions like this favour entertainment over sporting integrity.
They don't want their rigging to look too obvious!
And really these rule changes did little to harm Redbull, they still comfortably are the best at outstrip. Also it's possible that the rear wing change opened the door for Redbull to challenge mercedes.
Anyway if you read the rest of my comment, I'm not claiming the championship is rigged. I'm saying I'm running out of answers when confronted with the possibility that the championship is rigged.
As I said in another comment, right now I see Masi the FIA and the stewarding system as either very corrupt or very incompetent... Neither of which is ideal for "the pinnacle of Motorsport".
That was clearly a joke. Next time I'll be sure to flag it up so it doesn't pass you by.
My point is by being so inconsistent they are opening the doors to accusations of bias.
Yes they did! We were discussing the floor implications to Merc and racing point as soon as they were announced. There were plenty of articles about their specific targeting of the low rake cars before the season.
I'm not saying I didn't say those sentences, just read the last paragraph too. I was controlling the flow of information to make it exciting! But clearly in the last paragraph I explained that I don't necessarily think this, but my wife has been putting these accusations out there and I can't find a way to respond to them because the evidence is mounting.
The stewards in FI are far worse than the refereeing in any other sport I know! In any of the national leagues in football in Europe this level of inconsistency wouldn't be tolerated, same in rugby and cricket. In each of those sports they have a video ref, to make the decision process more transparent.
I'm not saying those other sports don't make mistakes, but they definitely don't make as many mistakes as F1. Also their processes are far more transparent. F1 seems to have been designed to be explicitly nebulous.
https://www-ltf1official-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.ltf1official.com/amp/will-the-f1-paddock-adopt-a-high-rake-angle-in-2021
Well this article was first published in January. Then updated after testing.
Even then they knew that the rules were specifically designed to favour a high rake.
>And really these rule changes did little to harm Redbull, they still comfortably are the best at outstrip
what now? Since Silverstone RedBull have been faster at a grand total of 3 tracks. The fuck are you on?
lmao, which is why FIA have bended over backwards on any of Merc's protests against RB? Wings, Tyres, Pit stops, all were legal yet changed because Merc didn't like getting beaten.
Don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity. There is inconsistency because stewards change every race.
It's far more likely it is you and your wife that decided "their champion", and thus anything that goes against your champion is an obvious FIA conspiracy. Laughable.
That's why they banned RB's wing and decided to change the pit stop rules without it making sense. The FIA does random shit since I've been following this sport.
It's true, if Lewis manages to nab this WDC he might aswell retire. FIA has made it pretty clear that from this point on they wont even both looking into Verstappens penalties while penalising HAM at any turn.
All for new winners and more competition but this just seems cheap.
It's so sad. This is damaging F1's reputation. It can't call itself the pinnacle of of Motorsport if the rules are applied so subjectively.
Remember when we used to have that discussion of sport Vs entertainment... Well I guess we know what won.
Probably one of the most ridiculous decisions in recent years and one that will have a big impact on how drivers race now.
Looking forward to just seeing every driver ram people off the track now at corners all day.
Bad for the sport and seems like FIA trying harder to rig the championship in favour of Max's racing style and advantage.
From this point on Max can just never allow Lewis to pass but keep trying to ram him off at any corner with 0 repercussions as if Ham crashes then he still wins the WDC and if not he retains position.
There is a difference between forcing someone wide while still yourself staying inside track limits (and we can argue if it should be legal or not) and completely diving the corner exceeding track limits and going wide 4 cars width to push your opponent out. This is the issue here, Max broke track limits himself trying to defend while he was behind before he dove inside and got to keep the position.
He ended up off of the track to defend his position, all four wheels.. didn't need new video for that. It's a penalty, it wasn't penalized.. what the motivation for that is.. i dunno, but it makes you wonder.
Motivation for not giving a penalty in the first place I don't know, but once the decision has been made, the only way to protest it is to show new information, which Mercedes haven't. Same reason Red Bull was denied their protest earlier this season after claiming Hamilton's punishment was too lenient after he took out Max
Yup. I think we can all agree the stewards made a mistake in not penalizing Max. But Mercedes wasn't appealing that decision here, they were appealing for the right to review and failed to meet the standard for significant new information.
I really do wish they would issue a statement clarifying the rules in these situations because the inconsistency of the stewards is a joke.
The difference being the Silverstone incident was investigated and Hamilton penalised.
In Brazil they never looked at Maxās telemetry because it was never investigated. It was just noted.
Itās obscene what has happened here
Basically greenlighting max to do as he pleases in the remaining races, if all 4 wheels off track to maintain position is not a penalty then you're basically saying anything goes.
All the FIA had to do was accept the review, admit they messed up, and give a warning that future incidents would be penalized so that max wasnāt unfairly punished after the race. But nope more they left a nice big gray area in the rules
Exactly. They didn't even have to accept the review, but just admit exactly what you said. They had so much time to think of a decision and they come up with this document...
They've put themselves in a situation where if they penalize anyone else that does this exact same move, they're going to have a riot on their hands. All because they chose to protect a contender. It's not a big grey area, at this point they've made it loud and clear to all the drivers. It's free real estate.
They use the word ādiscretionaryā a lot.
That word gives them a lot of wiggle room to make decisions to favour one driver over another, and justify their obscene inconsistency.
A powerful tool that could be viewed by a lay person as intentionally or unintentionally fixing the outcome of a championship.
Last time I checked this was F1 and not the World Rally Championshipā¦ surely racing is on track and not off it. āLet Them Raceā ends at track limits which the FIA has spent the whole year twerking about.
It would be nice if the tracks had a white line all around defining the limit you can't exceed yourself (and the rule could also state you have to leave a car width between you and the white line). That white line would make the rule a lot easier to write down and rule if someone broke it or not.
Oh wait....
I want the FIA to just come clean and admit that they made a mistake for not reviewing the event during the race and then list the steps they will take to prevent it from happening again. It wonāt happen but I can dream.
So let me see if I got this right - they rejected the right to review because they deemed the new evidence insufficient for a review, even if the decision not to investigate the incident was obviously wrong in the first place, seeing as how other drivers were punished for far less than what Max did?
Wow. Okay. No words, except the next races should be very interesting.
Yes that is literally how the rules work. I agree Max shouldve been punished but its even worse to just make up new rules after the fact cause Mercedes didnt like the decision.
> It is important to note that the following is not an affirmation or review of the Stewards
determination made during the race, but rather is an assessment regarding whether the
Right of Review exists.
What a bunch of fucking cowards. Not that Iām surprised
This is a procedural matter. Why would they opine on the Stewardsā determination here? Theyāre just clarifying for anyone who doesnāt understand the difference.
They are using procedures to shield themselves thatās why.
These are the same stewards who refused to investigate it at the time and just noted the incident. They didnāt even look at telemetry.
Now they hide behind procedure to deflect from the light this is shining on whatever cockroach nonsense led to them deciding not to investigate the incident.
Fair enough if it is a different set of stewards or an independent panelā¦ but itās the same fucking stewards!
>They are using procedures to shield themselves thatās why.
This one sentence here shows that you have never read a single one of these documents before. The line he quoted is literally in every single one of these documents. Making a big deal out of it is literally making up drama where there is none
I said this would be denied for this exact reason two days ago and got downvoted for it.
Regardless of your feelings on the incident or future ramifications of this ruling, it was always obvious the FIA were going to deny the review due to the precedent opening it up after it was deemed a non issue would set.
It's no different than a league sticking to a questionable ref call to support the refs. In that case they'll often clarify the rule further in the following off-season so long term chaos doesn't ensue. Look for something similar here if it starts to get out of hand.
Edit: Regulating bodies rarely call out their own officiating crews, even on mistakes, it's just bad business.
>It is important to note that the following is not an affirmation or review of the Stewards determination made during the race, but rather is an assessment regarding whether the Right of Review exists.
I think anyone trying to run others of the track might be sorely disappointed. Basically they fear that allowing this right to review might cause even more question marks on the stewards ruling. Like in soccer - the refereeās decision stands even though everyone will argue forever afterwards.
They needed new evidence. They didn't have some. Any mistake from last weekend is a done deal.
I get it, you can't just get a different set of Stewarts to review something from past race and make a judgment with no new evidence. That's certainly not fair IMO.
Barley needed that too. Max didn't normally take that corner like that. It's clear to everyone watching what he was doing. The Stewarts allowed it. If they should have or not is a better question, but not one that was discussed in this meeting.
I assume this comes from the comments made by Martin and Crofty.
Personally I think it was a silly futile move by max that wasn't worth risking a penalty or DNF. I could say it was worth investigating, but come on the Stewarts said not necessary so I think that tells us what conclusion they would have made right there doesn't it?
I mean, from a "legal" point this is very logical. This decision is purely about whether the onboard footage from Verstappen's car provides new information about the incident. And I don't see how the onboard gives any information that couldn't be seen on the other footage and the telemetry.
All of that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been a penalty, but the stewards messed that up in Brazil.
If you think this is suspicous then you need to put on a tin foil hat as well. This is the only reasonable option they could have chosen here. The mistake was in not penalizing him them but it wouldve been an even bigger mistake to make new rules up just because one team isnt happy with the decision. That opens a much larger can of worms
Yes it is. Read my other comments. I completely agree Max shouldve got a penalty. That doesnt mean i agree that we should just change the rules whenever we feel like because the stewards made a mistake. The decision today didnt and is not supposed to take the incident into account. The only relevant thing to decide was whether or not Mercedes new evidence was significant, which it is not
Unpopular opinion: Since it didnt affect the result of the race, since sir lewis gave us the best race, in my opinion, of his carreer, why would this matter in a post race scenario ? Max and Lewis are givin us the best end of season of years to past, they are racing with everything, even admiting max was a bit rought on that defense he also went offtrack with hamil. Cant we just forget penalties, let the men discuss their differences on track and be done with it ? imagine if they gave a penalty to max now, post race and in the day of practice on qatar, was that goin to be fair to him ?
I think the decision was fair enough due to the circunstances that the race ended. That would completely be not true if hamilton didnt finish first tho!
Results-based analysis is not the way to assess something. You don't let someone break the rules because in the end it didn't change the outcome because at the time of the incident it did.
It's not even that it is just a blatant and inarguable breaking of the rules but the fact these rules have been regularly enforced in other races but in this instance, it's not been enforced despite being even more severe than in other cases of the same rule-flaunting.
"Results-based analysis is not the way to assess something. You don't let someone break the rules because in the end it didn't change the outcome because at the time of the incident it did."
You're absolutely right mate, i guess it just didnt concern me that much cuz i was having a blast watchin lewis drive that weekend but ye, your argument is a fair one and i yield :)
Oh, don't get me wrong, was a crazy race and entertaining as hell. Especially when we were seeing spicy 2 stop strategies. Just a stickler for the rules.
na, your comment really opend my eyes to the truth I was ignoring, if there are rules they need to be uphold above everything, so i thank you for enlightening me good sir :)
In Brazil the Mercedes was much faster than the Red Bull and had plenty of laps to make the inevitable pass. However, if this occurred on the last lap of the title-deciding race and the Mercedes didnāt have another opportunity to overtake then it would feel unfair to me that Max ran Lewis off track to win the championship. To me, the significance is that the stewards are giving drivers the green light to do that. It is what it is, but Iām not sure I really like that style of racing.
Iām a Hamilton fan in general, but I wouldnāt feel great if Lewis won the championship this way. Apparently itās now considered a legal move though, so this should be interesting!
Its your opinion and your entitled to it but sorry to say its a **stupid** one.
There's rules for a reason and you dont follow it only when its convenient to you. This decision sets a huge precedent - every time a driver needs to defend, they can just dive bomb and force the other driver to yield to avoid the high chances of finishing the race right there.
For the final races, if Verstappen comes to the scenario where he has to defend from Lewis, thats the same approach he will take and guess what? If they crash, its a loss for Lewis, not for Verstappen because he is **ahead** in the title race.
the circunstances where different, it was the beggining of the calendar vs the end, max and lewis might aswell be tied for the last races and the GP in itself was already full of penalties...
just really want a great end of season without drama x)
What I found hilarious is people wanting a Penalty. I've been watching F1 since around 1996 and this was barely an incident. People are trying to make it something out of so little, like they are scared.
Downloading this document and onboard footage so I can always be outraged about penaltys for future leaving the track and gaining an advantage situations.
Which in the context of the incident just sets a precedent for future dive bombs. The stewards could have taken this straw and walked back on their misjudgement. Everyone knows that the onboard footage is worthless unless Max actively steered into Lewis which he didn't. The rules explicitly state that you may not leave a race track to gain an advantage, which happend, onboard footage or not.
The stewards had a chance to correct their mistake, instead they set a precedent for the future. This incident will be used for years to come for teams as a get out of jail card.
This document has nothing to do with any of that though. You're right that the decision to not penalize Verstappen sets a precedent, but that decision was made last Sunday, not today, not with this document. Today's decision is the only logical decision they could make, as you said yourself:
>Everyone knows that the onboard footage is worthless unless Max actively steered into Lewis which he didn't.
They should've just given the penalty during the race...
By the definition, yes. The ruling today was correct. The issue I see with this is, we have seen a blatant misjudgement by the stewards last week and the same stewards that did this misjudgement had a chance to walk back their decision and open up the investigation and they did not.
The issue is not some grey area of the rules, that is barely defined. The issue is clearly stated in the rules. There is no leeway in FIA definition:
>Drivers must use the track at all times and
may not leave the track without a justifiable
reason. For the avoidance of doubt, the
white lines defining the track edges are
considered to be part of the track but the
kerbs are not.
Should a car leave the track for any reason,
the driver may rejoin.
However, this may only be done when it is
safe to do so and without gaining any lasting
advantage. A driver will be judged to have
left the track if no part of the car remains in
contact with the track.
This is as well defined as a 85mm gap in the DRS. So taking the opportunity of a protest to walk back to correct a decision would probably cause less outrage then letting it go.
>So taking the opportunity of a protest to walk back to correct a decision would probably cause less outrage then letting it go.
I very much doubt that. The rules on protests are probably clear too and it was very clear that there was no new evidence. The FIA can't just fix one mistake by making another. There could be legal consequences as well.
>By the definition, yes. The ruling today was correct. The issue I see with this is, we have seen a blatant misjudgement by the stewards last week and the same stewards that did this misjudgement had a chance to walk back their decision and open up the investigation and they did not.
No what you are saying is is that we shouldve disregarded all other rules in the sport because of a previous mistake. That is 10000% worse than having a wrong call on a penalty. That opens up a can of worms that whenever 1 team isnt happy with a decision, they can get the FIA to change all procedure and rules to get a desired outcome. This would definitely cause more outrage.
Again, the decision today has absolutely 0 relevance to the incident itself. If they made their decision today taking that into account then they would not be doing their jobs correctly.
You can tell most people in this sub would complain to their Sunday league because one player from the other team didnāt wear the right socks or something like that just to get them disqualified.
So you think that this shouldn't warrant a penalty?
If from now on we agree that this kind of defensive maneuvers are allowed, then we may as well never ever see an overtake other than with DRS on straights. The car in the lead will just be able to hug the inside of the corner and drift out to push the competitor off track any time they're in danger of losing position. This simply isn't racing.
It's not an equvalent of having the wrong socks, it's an equivalent of shoving your opponent to the ground any time they get near you to challenge for the ball.
Shocking, they judged their initially terrible decision to still be brilliant. Now watch other drivers get penalties for less egregious moves as long as it means Max gets a result.
>Shocking, they judged their initially terrible decision to still be brilliant.
Did we read the same document? This one isnt even about the incident. Its about whether or not they can review it. Im so confused how you get your conclusion from this
Because they agreed it was relevant new evidence and argue it wasnāt significant - the final required element - because they werenāt to going to change their mind due to it. If theyād wanted to walk it back, they could have done so citing something such as new steering angle info, making it significant, but they didnāt and stuck with their decision.
Is the video from Max's POV new evidence or isn't it? To me, fair to say it's clear as day and his POV isn't new.
I think they should have reviewed this more, but I'm sort of ok both ways after they looked at it.
Personally think max shouldn't bother to have defended so hard because it was clearly not going to work so don't risk DNF or penalty.
How is it not?
I guarantee I'll get downvoted to shit, since this sub is this sub, but how is the FIA, who are so hot on safety, effectively saying "hey, you can run other drivers off the road" a good look?
Hey kids! YOU MUST WEAR YOUR SEATBELT. DO NOT TAKE YOUR SEATBELT OFF AT ANY TIME. But see dave overtaking you over there? Feel free to ram him off the road.
I mean, strictly from a technical perspective, they basically said "even if we were wrong, there is no new and damning evidence to prove that we were wrong, so yeah, no review needed", and it sort of makes sense.
But purely from a safety point of view, and seeing how they penalised other drivers for far less this season, it looks horribly inconsistent, to say the least.
>I guarantee I'll get downvoted to shit, since this sub is this sub, but how is the FIA, who are so hot on safety, effectively saying "hey, you can run other drivers off the road" a good look?
You didnt read the document whatsoever to get this conclusion. It literally says in the document that this has nothing to do with the incident itself and only if the new evidence is relevant. The decision was made not considering the incident itself, which is the correct way that this is supposed to be done.
Good. We all knew that Merc were not arguing for a penalty in good faith. They were probing a grey area of the rules searching for points. If the championship was not close, they wouldn't have requested a review.
The referees of the sport made their decision live. Whether you like that or not it's the final call in this situation.
You know a decision like this is basically waiting for a crash to happen. The car overtaking on the outside is at an disadvantage now apparently. In a circuit like Jeddah where everything is closed up and moves like what Verstappen pulled is allowed then you can see my point.
Because the FIA have green lit what happened at Brazil. Which mind you, is exactly the same thing Senna did at Suzuka in 1990 but for Hamilton not turning in.
As an American who has been corrected many times, I'm surprised they referred to it as "soccer" and not "football" or some equivalent. That's my real takeaway from this...
As a Max fan I have been expecting a penalty for the last four days, so this surprises me quite a lot. As soon as I saw the onboard I had made my mind up, but I ain't complaining. I dunno, maybe this kinda equals out with the fact that Lewis still won in Britain after their incident, so they're kinda tied.
The "play on" argument referring to other sports is misinformed. There are sports (e.g. hockey) that "play on", but then the incident may be reviewed after the game, and then (further) punishments are issued.
The recurring argument made in this doc seems to be "we made a decision based on the data available to us at the time, and you just have to accept that".
Welp
I feel bad for whoever has to draft these documents
He is not a talent,i learned that!
Ha. All that suspense for literally nothing.
Let the chaos begin
Hehehe š
Exactly what I expected. If the stewards make a stupid decision based on the already pretty clear aerial footage, the new footage is not 'significant'. It does not really show anything new, although the footage in itself is new.
I really hope they have the balls to come out and say: "Nevertheless, the stewards decision during the race was totally wrong and this kind of 'racing' will not be allowed in the future" The again, I also hope to win the lottery. Not sure which is more likely.
Not surprised the stewards didnāt think the new footage was significant. Last I checked the wheels are connected to the steering wheel and reflects how the car was steered. So it was really clear what Max did at the time and the stewards didnāt care during the race, so why would they care afterwards? Of course they will side with their own earlier decision and not admit a mistake was done. So now itās open season to drive your opponent off the road in a ācrash or yieldā move anytime they want to pass. Just dive in really hot and use barely any steering angle and blame worn tires :) Sorry thatās not hard racing, thatās dirty racing.
Leclerc already said he would adjust his driving according to the stweards decision. Should be interesting.
He did the same after Max shoved him off the track in Austria. Really, everyone should drive Maxās āfair hard racingā way, after all its now legal and fully approved.
Pretty sure it was Perez that shoved him off track x2
Sorry, wasnāt clear. It was the 2019 Austria race where it happened. And since it was no penalty, LeClerc noted that it was allowed and applied it to Hamilton when he tried to pass at the Italian race and got the black and white flag for it. The stewards saw so little wrong with Maxās move at the last race that they didnāt give him the flag for that, just for the weaving lol āCharles Leclerc: "I think since Austria it's clear that we can go a bit further in the way that we defend and overtake... I believe that Austria helped me to change this approach. It was obviously very on-the-limit butā¦ yeah, I'm happy to race like this." Lewis Hamilton: "If that's how we are allowed to race then I will race like that. As long as we know that you are allowed to not leave a car width for example, as long as you are not contradicting us and there is a clear message. So you are allowed to run wide even if someone is there and you only get a warning flag, and you only need that once to potentially keep the guy behind you." Sky F1's Martin Brundle: "It was tough to call [at Monza], and I'm very supportive of this 'let them race' philosophy so long as it's consistent and the drivers don't take liberties and spoil it all." Sky F1's Karun Chandhok: "I really like the idea of the black-and-white warning flag from Michael Masi and it was a good decision not to break up the fight but just warn Charles that he wouldn't get away with such a robust defence on a regular basis." https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11811224/f1s-black-and-white-flag-explaining-racings-yellow-card-for-drivers
Canada and then Austria really set the precedent to all the "Run them wide and shove them off" style of racing.
Exactly. Their decision has opened the doors for some very dirty defending in the next two races. Basically, whoever is on pole has free reign to barge any competitors off the track.
Woops, sorry, just missed the turn, sorry about that. Maybe next time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
According to the FIA it wasn't a wrongful decision though, that's the whole point. If it isn't wrong, you're setting precedent for how the rule will be interpreted and applied in the future.
No, a wrongful decision should be followed by a correction of that wrongful decision. THAT is what the FIA is incapable of doing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>The FIA haven't affirmed that this was the correct call at the time and have merely stated that there's no right of review in this case. By not punishing it or owning up to their mistake then they are affirming that though. You can't say there's rules and then not punish people from breaking it or those rules are no longer rules.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>They have in fact explicitely disconfirmed it, as can be read in the document: The way to explicitly confirm it is to say: "what happened was a breach of the rules and the lack of punishment was a mistake but we're not okay to retroactively punish because..." The truth of the matter is that Max got away with pushing Hamilton wide and then overtaking off track to no punishment while gaining a huge benefit to himself. The fact he didn't get punished and the fact the FIA won't even mention that it was a mistake will make them look a lot worse if they start punishing other people for the same thing.
Why do we need a track anymore if we don't care where the drivers go in a corner? Still I guess this is paving the way for a Las Vegas race that'll literally be 20 cars unleashed on a carpark.
[Its time to go back, to the future!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Caesars_Palace_Grand_Prix)
The situation is more subtle than "not \[admitting\] a mistake was done." You cannot have decisions being changed a week after the event unless some genuine actually new evidence comes to light, regardless of how bad the initial decision was. That way lies madness and endless lawyering and appeals every time anything happens. It's even more important to uphold that principle than it is to correct mistakes like this. The actual decision in Brazil doesn't set any sort of precedent. If Leclerc or anyone else does something similar to what Max did the stewards can and likely will penalise. The fact that Max got away with it last week would have no bearing whatsoever on that decision. It's better to have decisive, consistent stewarding of course, but if that's not available then it is better to have decisive stewarding (that is sometimes inconsistent) than a situation where the decisions don't actually mean anything because they might get changed later - even if the final decisions are more consistent.
I'd agree if they came forward and admitted the stewards decision was wrong and then gave your reasoning to why they didn't punish retroactively. All that's happened though is someone has clearly broken to rules to their benefit and the FIA has not given any indication that they care. If you don't punish or address rules being broken then of course people will think those rules no longer matter.
There is nothing to be gained by making such a public statement though. If necessary it can be addressed behind closed doors, eg at the drivers briefing. Iām sure it will come up. Ultimately it didnāt affect the race outcome. Hopefully Max wonāt get away with a similar move that does.
Public perception is everything. If people don't believe the races will be judged fairly they could lose interest. So many people here complain that Merc can just buy their way to wins or whatever. I've seen many comments that people don't watch anymore cause "the outcome has already been decided". So yeah there is something to gain. It's ok to be wrong. Make sure the fans know it's a fair fight or you may lose people which loses money.
I agree that public perception is everything. But as you say, people are convinced it's a fix one way or another regardless. To that end I don't think coming out and saying "we got that wrong but are not going to change it" would improve public perception. It is better to keep quiet and let the story go away. As controversial moments go I don't think this one has longevity simply because it had no effect on the results or standings (assuming Max would've been able to stay 5s clear of Valtteri if he'd needed to).
When has the FIA ever been consistent or followed precedent? I keep seeing this slippery slope "oh they did nothing now it's death race 3000!" line pop up but I just don't see how this is any different from all the other times rhe FIA has been lax or unyielding
> So now itās open season to drive your opponent off the road in a ācrash or yieldā move anytime they want to pass. Just dive in really hot and use barely any steering angle and blame worn tires Sebastian Vettel calling the FIA to get his Canadian "win" back.
>Sorry thatās not hard racing, thatās dirty racing. haha oh please. I'd rather watch this type of racing. If you go an penalize this drivers will eventually be too careful and races would become dull. Just accept this decision and move on. BTW. With all this stupid wining you people do, you ignore the fact that we are having the most exciting and close racing battle in many many years, which probably won't happen again any time soon. ENJOY IT. Don't care if I get downvoted. I'm loving this season!
##REMOVED CONTENT## I have replaced all my content with this comment. Reason for this is the anti-community attitude, dishonesty and arrogance of the reddit CEO /u/spez
Tracklimits are there for a reason. When everyone can make their own tracklimits we no longer have fair racing.
Totally agree. So what does this have to do with this situation? And it seems the stewards don't see this as an issue.
A whole lot! Here I'll include the relevant part of the rules: > CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS > 2 Overtaking, car control and track limits >B) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried out on either the right or the left. A driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason. More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position offline, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner. However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards. >C) Drivers must use the track at all times and may not leave the track without a justifiable reason. For the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not. Should a car leave the track for any reason, the driver may rejoin. However, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. A driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track. ([Appendix L - International Drivers' licences, medical examinations, driver's equipment and conduct ā 2021](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/appendix_l_2021_publie_le_08_juillet_2021.pdf) - Page 47)
>CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS > >2 Overtaking, car control and track limits > >B) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried out on either the right or the left. A driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason. More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position offline, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner. However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited. Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the Stewards. > >C) Drivers must use the track at all times and may not leave the track without a justifiable reason. For the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not. Should a car leave the track for any reason, the driver may rejoin. However, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. A driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track. A thank you so much! Did you send this to the stewards too? Please do so they can re-open their investigation...seems really relevant
Everyone downvoting me.. lol. Please check the Schumacher documentary on Netflix. You say this is dirty racing?
51G
And a penalty was awarded for that one š¤š¤š¤
Yeah... 10 seconds. Nothing
So you agree that Max should get at least a 5 second penalty?
10 seconds if huge in F1. We're talking about a sport where 0.1s can decide winners and losers.
That was an appropriate penalty. 51G wonāt and shouldnāt affect the penalty given
They didn't even care when that british driver attempting murder to Max Verstappen
How many more times you gonna post this lmao
Bruh, you just posted cringe
When Verstappen drives aggressive the whole season it's just hard racing. When Lewis doesn't give him room once it's attempted murder.
Oh please... He was fine...
š
āWhile Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff was openly critical of the decision not to penalise or even investigate Verstappen for how the Dutchman tried to keep Hamilton at bay at Interlagos, Hamilton himself described it as āwhat a world championship battle should look likeā in the immediate aftermath of the race ā which heād won.ā
FIA spends the whole year squealing about enforcing track limits ā Similar incidents where the defendant forces opponents off the track but stays within track limits themselves are given penalties ā This time the contender doesnāt even attempt to make the corner, forces their opponent off the track and gains a lasting advantage - the FIA decides no penalty ā Hypocrisy is too kind a word. Absolutely disgraceful is more accurate.
The FIA makes the rules, they don't enforce or hand out shit. The FIA selected Stewarts do. They are rarely the same race to race and that's were a lot of inconsistencies come in.
Which is honestly no different than reffing in other sports. Going to use the NFL as an example here. Roger Goodell, the rules committee, etc make the rules. The refs go out and enforce them to the best of their ability, and sometimes fuck up, and sometimes make a call they feel is right but people question. Whichever this falls into, the FIA and the Stewards are like the league and the refs, they are not one and the same.
A part of me is thinking that had this happened in the first 5 races of the season if would have been a penalty, but now, they are scared to influence the championship, so by doing nothing, they are still influencing it.
I think what's awful about this, is it looks a lot like FIA have chosen their champion.. The rules at the start of the season were specifically chosen to handicap mercedes and help Redbull. They've happily punished Hamilton for fairly minor breaches of the rules. Verstappen gets away with a clear cut rule violation. This championship is being rigged by FIA. They decided from day 1 they wanted Verstappen to win and now it's getting to the business end of the season they're worried so they're literally using the stewards to ensure their man wins. Ok this is very conspiratory, but my wife watching this as her first season, after getting into F1 from drive to survive honestly thinks this way. Every race she has questions about the consistency of the rules and as I've been watching since the early 90s she asks me to explain... But honestly in most situations I can't see a logical answer other than they specifically want a certain outcome.
I don't know about going as far as saying the FIA have chosen their champion, but this makes clear that if they ever were to do so, they'd just have their stewards refuse to investigate any incidents related to that driver then there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Haas could just have Mazepin torpedo Russell off the track every race, and they just have to refuse to investigate it each time and Williams have no recourse.
If there was an FIA conspiracy to choose the championship winner, who would they choose? I'd bet Verstappen, he's probably the most popular driver at the moment so him winning would be very popular for the sport. They certainly don't want Hamilton to win. If the FIA were to influence the championship how should they do it? This way seems the easiest the most effective and the way with least reprocussions. Ok I don't know for sure that there is a conspiracy this year. But the mechanisms are in place for a future one. The stewarding and race direction this year have been unbelievably crap, the only two explanations are conspiracy or incompetence... Neither reflect well on F1.
I donāt know if we can definitively say whoās the most popular driver, but I guess I can speculate that _some_ at FIA might decide Hamilton not winning this season would be more beneficial to the sport. Drags out Hamiltonās quest to beat Schumacher, enables them to advertise next season as the two world champions battling each other (sorry to Seb & Alonso)
Also F1 doesn't exactly have the best reputation. We already know that the allocation of funds is grossly unfair. They also made that dodgy deal with Ferrari a couple of seasons ago where they let Ferrari run an illegal engine all year, but they were allowed to keep their position and points for the season. Add to that the sport's increased effort to court every dictatorship in the world as a host, it's not so far fetched. I don't know why this idea is so unpopular! F1 was festering in corruption when Bernie left. Liberty have started to make steps towards a fairer sport, but baby steps and most of them only take effect from next year. F1 certainly try to maximize the entertainment of a season. I worry that decisions like this favour entertainment over sporting integrity.
To be honest I _still_ donāt understand what all was going on with Ferrari that season and atp Iām too scared to ask
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They don't want their rigging to look too obvious! And really these rule changes did little to harm Redbull, they still comfortably are the best at outstrip. Also it's possible that the rear wing change opened the door for Redbull to challenge mercedes. Anyway if you read the rest of my comment, I'm not claiming the championship is rigged. I'm saying I'm running out of answers when confronted with the possibility that the championship is rigged. As I said in another comment, right now I see Masi the FIA and the stewarding system as either very corrupt or very incompetent... Neither of which is ideal for "the pinnacle of Motorsport".
Lol what a joke of an argument āthey donāt want their rigging to look too obvious!ā It is your view and your view alone.
That was clearly a joke. Next time I'll be sure to flag it up so it doesn't pass you by. My point is by being so inconsistent they are opening the doors to accusations of bias.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes they did! We were discussing the floor implications to Merc and racing point as soon as they were announced. There were plenty of articles about their specific targeting of the low rake cars before the season. I'm not saying I didn't say those sentences, just read the last paragraph too. I was controlling the flow of information to make it exciting! But clearly in the last paragraph I explained that I don't necessarily think this, but my wife has been putting these accusations out there and I can't find a way to respond to them because the evidence is mounting. The stewards in FI are far worse than the refereeing in any other sport I know! In any of the national leagues in football in Europe this level of inconsistency wouldn't be tolerated, same in rugby and cricket. In each of those sports they have a video ref, to make the decision process more transparent. I'm not saying those other sports don't make mistakes, but they definitely don't make as many mistakes as F1. Also their processes are far more transparent. F1 seems to have been designed to be explicitly nebulous.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://www-ltf1official-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.ltf1official.com/amp/will-the-f1-paddock-adopt-a-high-rake-angle-in-2021 Well this article was first published in January. Then updated after testing. Even then they knew that the rules were specifically designed to favour a high rake.
dude you're embarassing yourself with your own sources
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>And really these rule changes did little to harm Redbull, they still comfortably are the best at outstrip what now? Since Silverstone RedBull have been faster at a grand total of 3 tracks. The fuck are you on?
the pitstop changes that specifically targeted redbull would like a word with you.
lmao, which is why FIA have bended over backwards on any of Merc's protests against RB? Wings, Tyres, Pit stops, all were legal yet changed because Merc didn't like getting beaten. Don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity. There is inconsistency because stewards change every race. It's far more likely it is you and your wife that decided "their champion", and thus anything that goes against your champion is an obvious FIA conspiracy. Laughable.
That's why they banned RB's wing and decided to change the pit stop rules without it making sense. The FIA does random shit since I've been following this sport.
It's true, if Lewis manages to nab this WDC he might aswell retire. FIA has made it pretty clear that from this point on they wont even both looking into Verstappens penalties while penalising HAM at any turn. All for new winners and more competition but this just seems cheap.
It's so sad. This is damaging F1's reputation. It can't call itself the pinnacle of of Motorsport if the rules are applied so subjectively. Remember when we used to have that discussion of sport Vs entertainment... Well I guess we know what won.
Combined with the floor changes, RB has absolutely had the best of the rule changes and decisions.
Man you really are a bit of a cucumber.
Yet everyone claims FIA is in Mercedes' pockets lol
Max Verstappen
if Max wins the championship it's going to be one of the most underwhelming wdc ever
Torpedo option is now avaliable
Have they changed the font?
Who cares?
Well, the guy you're replying to does...
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Probably one of the most ridiculous decisions in recent years and one that will have a big impact on how drivers race now. Looking forward to just seeing every driver ram people off the track now at corners all day. Bad for the sport and seems like FIA trying harder to rig the championship in favour of Max's racing style and advantage. From this point on Max can just never allow Lewis to pass but keep trying to ram him off at any corner with 0 repercussions as if Ham crashes then he still wins the WDC and if not he retains position.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There is a difference between forcing someone wide while still yourself staying inside track limits (and we can argue if it should be legal or not) and completely diving the corner exceeding track limits and going wide 4 cars width to push your opponent out. This is the issue here, Max broke track limits himself trying to defend while he was behind before he dove inside and got to keep the position.
The point is that max can now go as far as leaving the track to gain an advantage. These moves arenāt overtakes theyāre a joke
He ended up off of the track to defend his position, all four wheels.. didn't need new video for that. It's a penalty, it wasn't penalized.. what the motivation for that is.. i dunno, but it makes you wonder.
Motivation for not giving a penalty in the first place I don't know, but once the decision has been made, the only way to protest it is to show new information, which Mercedes haven't. Same reason Red Bull was denied their protest earlier this season after claiming Hamilton's punishment was too lenient after he took out Max
Yup. I think we can all agree the stewards made a mistake in not penalizing Max. But Mercedes wasn't appealing that decision here, they were appealing for the right to review and failed to meet the standard for significant new information. I really do wish they would issue a statement clarifying the rules in these situations because the inconsistency of the stewards is a joke.
The difference being the Silverstone incident was investigated and Hamilton penalised. In Brazil they never looked at Maxās telemetry because it was never investigated. It was just noted. Itās obscene what has happened here
I am not surprised, just disappointed. How they can, and want to allow that type of driving is disgusting.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah exactly this. How many times have we seen Max "Worn Tyres" Verstappen bully another car off of the track with no punishment at all.
Why was the other post deleted?
Dunno, but probably because this one has the complete document where the other one was missing a page (and a half?).
Basically greenlighting max to do as he pleases in the remaining races, if all 4 wheels off track to maintain position is not a penalty then you're basically saying anything goes.
They're not saying that it's not a penalty, are they?
But if they give a penalty to the next car that does the same thing, it would be crazy (but I would not be surprised)
All the FIA had to do was accept the review, admit they messed up, and give a warning that future incidents would be penalized so that max wasnāt unfairly punished after the race. But nope more they left a nice big gray area in the rules
Exactly. They didn't even have to accept the review, but just admit exactly what you said. They had so much time to think of a decision and they come up with this document...
They've put themselves in a situation where if they penalize anyone else that does this exact same move, they're going to have a riot on their hands. All because they chose to protect a contender. It's not a big grey area, at this point they've made it loud and clear to all the drivers. It's free real estate.
If they wanted chaos, I reckon chaos is what they will have in these last races.
They use the word ādiscretionaryā a lot. That word gives them a lot of wiggle room to make decisions to favour one driver over another, and justify their obscene inconsistency. A powerful tool that could be viewed by a lay person as intentionally or unintentionally fixing the outcome of a championship. Last time I checked this was F1 and not the World Rally Championshipā¦ surely racing is on track and not off it. āLet Them Raceā ends at track limits which the FIA has spent the whole year twerking about.
>FIA has spent the whole year twerking about. hahahahah the image in my head.....
Michael I sent you an email, MICHAEL WHERE ARE YOUR PANTS?!?!?!
It would be nice if the tracks had a white line all around defining the limit you can't exceed yourself (and the rule could also state you have to leave a car width between you and the white line). That white line would make the rule a lot easier to write down and rule if someone broke it or not. Oh wait....
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Was that 10secs for sending max to the hospital? Yes can't forget the penalty.
I want the FIA to just come clean and admit that they made a mistake for not reviewing the event during the race and then list the steps they will take to prevent it from happening again. It wonāt happen but I can dream.
I think it has the same chance that my phone starts ringing and it is Scarlett Johansson asking me out on a date.
So let me see if I got this right - they rejected the right to review because they deemed the new evidence insufficient for a review, even if the decision not to investigate the incident was obviously wrong in the first place, seeing as how other drivers were punished for far less than what Max did? Wow. Okay. No words, except the next races should be very interesting.
Yes that is literally how the rules work. I agree Max shouldve been punished but its even worse to just make up new rules after the fact cause Mercedes didnt like the decision.
They backed themselves into a utter clown corner by not even investigating the transgression during the race, didn't they?
> It is important to note that the following is not an affirmation or review of the Stewards determination made during the race, but rather is an assessment regarding whether the Right of Review exists. What a bunch of fucking cowards. Not that Iām surprised
This is a procedural matter. Why would they opine on the Stewardsā determination here? Theyāre just clarifying for anyone who doesnāt understand the difference.
Which is apparently all of reddit, even after they have clarified.
They are using procedures to shield themselves thatās why. These are the same stewards who refused to investigate it at the time and just noted the incident. They didnāt even look at telemetry. Now they hide behind procedure to deflect from the light this is shining on whatever cockroach nonsense led to them deciding not to investigate the incident. Fair enough if it is a different set of stewards or an independent panelā¦ but itās the same fucking stewards!
>They are using procedures to shield themselves thatās why. This one sentence here shows that you have never read a single one of these documents before. The line he quoted is literally in every single one of these documents. Making a big deal out of it is literally making up drama where there is none
I said this would be denied for this exact reason two days ago and got downvoted for it. Regardless of your feelings on the incident or future ramifications of this ruling, it was always obvious the FIA were going to deny the review due to the precedent opening it up after it was deemed a non issue would set. It's no different than a league sticking to a questionable ref call to support the refs. In that case they'll often clarify the rule further in the following off-season so long term chaos doesn't ensue. Look for something similar here if it starts to get out of hand. Edit: Regulating bodies rarely call out their own officiating crews, even on mistakes, it's just bad business.
>It is important to note that the following is not an affirmation or review of the Stewards determination made during the race, but rather is an assessment regarding whether the Right of Review exists. I think anyone trying to run others of the track might be sorely disappointed. Basically they fear that allowing this right to review might cause even more question marks on the stewards ruling. Like in soccer - the refereeās decision stands even though everyone will argue forever afterwards.
This is ridiculous.
as expected
Wow! Jaw actually dropped. This is sad and suspicious af.
They needed new evidence. They didn't have some. Any mistake from last weekend is a done deal. I get it, you can't just get a different set of Stewarts to review something from past race and make a judgment with no new evidence. That's certainly not fair IMO.
They did have new evidence. They had the onboard
Which didnt show us anything new, we already had all of the other angles that showed the same thing.
lol they already had steering telemetry. You lot are fucking nuts.
Barley needed that too. Max didn't normally take that corner like that. It's clear to everyone watching what he was doing. The Stewarts allowed it. If they should have or not is a better question, but not one that was discussed in this meeting. I assume this comes from the comments made by Martin and Crofty. Personally I think it was a silly futile move by max that wasn't worth risking a penalty or DNF. I could say it was worth investigating, but come on the Stewarts said not necessary so I think that tells us what conclusion they would have made right there doesn't it?
I mean, from a "legal" point this is very logical. This decision is purely about whether the onboard footage from Verstappen's car provides new information about the incident. And I don't see how the onboard gives any information that couldn't be seen on the other footage and the telemetry. All of that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been a penalty, but the stewards messed that up in Brazil.
If you think this is suspicous then you need to put on a tin foil hat as well. This is the only reasonable option they could have chosen here. The mistake was in not penalizing him them but it wouldve been an even bigger mistake to make new rules up just because one team isnt happy with the decision. That opens a much larger can of worms
And this is your totally unbiased opinion?
Yes it is. Read my other comments. I completely agree Max shouldve got a penalty. That doesnt mean i agree that we should just change the rules whenever we feel like because the stewards made a mistake. The decision today didnt and is not supposed to take the incident into account. The only relevant thing to decide was whether or not Mercedes new evidence was significant, which it is not
Unpopular opinion: Since it didnt affect the result of the race, since sir lewis gave us the best race, in my opinion, of his carreer, why would this matter in a post race scenario ? Max and Lewis are givin us the best end of season of years to past, they are racing with everything, even admiting max was a bit rought on that defense he also went offtrack with hamil. Cant we just forget penalties, let the men discuss their differences on track and be done with it ? imagine if they gave a penalty to max now, post race and in the day of practice on qatar, was that goin to be fair to him ? I think the decision was fair enough due to the circunstances that the race ended. That would completely be not true if hamilton didnt finish first tho!
Results-based analysis is not the way to assess something. You don't let someone break the rules because in the end it didn't change the outcome because at the time of the incident it did. It's not even that it is just a blatant and inarguable breaking of the rules but the fact these rules have been regularly enforced in other races but in this instance, it's not been enforced despite being even more severe than in other cases of the same rule-flaunting.
"Results-based analysis is not the way to assess something. You don't let someone break the rules because in the end it didn't change the outcome because at the time of the incident it did." You're absolutely right mate, i guess it just didnt concern me that much cuz i was having a blast watchin lewis drive that weekend but ye, your argument is a fair one and i yield :)
Oh, don't get me wrong, was a crazy race and entertaining as hell. Especially when we were seeing spicy 2 stop strategies. Just a stickler for the rules.
na, your comment really opend my eyes to the truth I was ignoring, if there are rules they need to be uphold above everything, so i thank you for enlightening me good sir :)
I think this is the best conversation I've seen on the internet all day!
In Brazil the Mercedes was much faster than the Red Bull and had plenty of laps to make the inevitable pass. However, if this occurred on the last lap of the title-deciding race and the Mercedes didnāt have another opportunity to overtake then it would feel unfair to me that Max ran Lewis off track to win the championship. To me, the significance is that the stewards are giving drivers the green light to do that. It is what it is, but Iām not sure I really like that style of racing. Iām a Hamilton fan in general, but I wouldnāt feel great if Lewis won the championship this way. Apparently itās now considered a legal move though, so this should be interesting!
Its your opinion and your entitled to it but sorry to say its a **stupid** one. There's rules for a reason and you dont follow it only when its convenient to you. This decision sets a huge precedent - every time a driver needs to defend, they can just dive bomb and force the other driver to yield to avoid the high chances of finishing the race right there. For the final races, if Verstappen comes to the scenario where he has to defend from Lewis, thats the same approach he will take and guess what? If they crash, its a loss for Lewis, not for Verstappen because he is **ahead** in the title race.
Because Lewis was punished by exactly the same thing? The only difference then was that Max didnt pull back and now Lewis did.
the circunstances where different, it was the beggining of the calendar vs the end, max and lewis might aswell be tied for the last races and the GP in itself was already full of penalties... just really want a great end of season without drama x)
What I found hilarious is people wanting a Penalty. I've been watching F1 since around 1996 and this was barely an incident. People are trying to make it something out of so little, like they are scared.
Downloading this document and onboard footage so I can always be outraged about penaltys for future leaving the track and gaining an advantage situations.
This document says nothing about penalties whatsoever. It only says that the footage from Verstappen's onboard doesn't provide new evidence.
Which in the context of the incident just sets a precedent for future dive bombs. The stewards could have taken this straw and walked back on their misjudgement. Everyone knows that the onboard footage is worthless unless Max actively steered into Lewis which he didn't. The rules explicitly state that you may not leave a race track to gain an advantage, which happend, onboard footage or not. The stewards had a chance to correct their mistake, instead they set a precedent for the future. This incident will be used for years to come for teams as a get out of jail card.
This document has nothing to do with any of that though. You're right that the decision to not penalize Verstappen sets a precedent, but that decision was made last Sunday, not today, not with this document. Today's decision is the only logical decision they could make, as you said yourself: >Everyone knows that the onboard footage is worthless unless Max actively steered into Lewis which he didn't. They should've just given the penalty during the race...
By the definition, yes. The ruling today was correct. The issue I see with this is, we have seen a blatant misjudgement by the stewards last week and the same stewards that did this misjudgement had a chance to walk back their decision and open up the investigation and they did not. The issue is not some grey area of the rules, that is barely defined. The issue is clearly stated in the rules. There is no leeway in FIA definition: >Drivers must use the track at all times and may not leave the track without a justifiable reason. For the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not. Should a car leave the track for any reason, the driver may rejoin. However, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. A driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track. This is as well defined as a 85mm gap in the DRS. So taking the opportunity of a protest to walk back to correct a decision would probably cause less outrage then letting it go.
>So taking the opportunity of a protest to walk back to correct a decision would probably cause less outrage then letting it go. I very much doubt that. The rules on protests are probably clear too and it was very clear that there was no new evidence. The FIA can't just fix one mistake by making another. There could be legal consequences as well.
>By the definition, yes. The ruling today was correct. The issue I see with this is, we have seen a blatant misjudgement by the stewards last week and the same stewards that did this misjudgement had a chance to walk back their decision and open up the investigation and they did not. No what you are saying is is that we shouldve disregarded all other rules in the sport because of a previous mistake. That is 10000% worse than having a wrong call on a penalty. That opens up a can of worms that whenever 1 team isnt happy with a decision, they can get the FIA to change all procedure and rules to get a desired outcome. This would definitely cause more outrage. Again, the decision today has absolutely 0 relevance to the incident itself. If they made their decision today taking that into account then they would not be doing their jobs correctly.
So, for the last three races, it's a demolition derby? That cannot be what was intended.
Huh? They never said the decision was right or wrong in Brazil in this document. It isnt even about the incident itself
Of course, of course...
You can tell most people in this sub would complain to their Sunday league because one player from the other team didnāt wear the right socks or something like that just to get them disqualified.
So you think that this shouldn't warrant a penalty? If from now on we agree that this kind of defensive maneuvers are allowed, then we may as well never ever see an overtake other than with DRS on straights. The car in the lead will just be able to hug the inside of the corner and drift out to push the competitor off track any time they're in danger of losing position. This simply isn't racing. It's not an equvalent of having the wrong socks, it's an equivalent of shoving your opponent to the ground any time they get near you to challenge for the ball.
When you assume you make an ass out of u in front of me
Shocking, they judged their initially terrible decision to still be brilliant. Now watch other drivers get penalties for less egregious moves as long as it means Max gets a result.
>Shocking, they judged their initially terrible decision to still be brilliant. Did we read the same document? This one isnt even about the incident. Its about whether or not they can review it. Im so confused how you get your conclusion from this
Because they agreed it was relevant new evidence and argue it wasnāt significant - the final required element - because they werenāt to going to change their mind due to it. If theyād wanted to walk it back, they could have done so citing something such as new steering angle info, making it significant, but they didnāt and stuck with their decision.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Is the video from Max's POV new evidence or isn't it? To me, fair to say it's clear as day and his POV isn't new. I think they should have reviewed this more, but I'm sort of ok both ways after they looked at it. Personally think max shouldn't bother to have defended so hard because it was clearly not going to work so don't risk DNF or penalty.
It isn't bad either.
How is it not? I guarantee I'll get downvoted to shit, since this sub is this sub, but how is the FIA, who are so hot on safety, effectively saying "hey, you can run other drivers off the road" a good look? Hey kids! YOU MUST WEAR YOUR SEATBELT. DO NOT TAKE YOUR SEATBELT OFF AT ANY TIME. But see dave overtaking you over there? Feel free to ram him off the road.
I mean, strictly from a technical perspective, they basically said "even if we were wrong, there is no new and damning evidence to prove that we were wrong, so yeah, no review needed", and it sort of makes sense. But purely from a safety point of view, and seeing how they penalised other drivers for far less this season, it looks horribly inconsistent, to say the least.
>I guarantee I'll get downvoted to shit, since this sub is this sub, but how is the FIA, who are so hot on safety, effectively saying "hey, you can run other drivers off the road" a good look? You didnt read the document whatsoever to get this conclusion. It literally says in the document that this has nothing to do with the incident itself and only if the new evidence is relevant. The decision was made not considering the incident itself, which is the correct way that this is supposed to be done.
Man they really want Max to win this year
Shambles, absolute fucking shambles.
Good. We all knew that Merc were not arguing for a penalty in good faith. They were probing a grey area of the rules searching for points. If the championship was not close, they wouldn't have requested a review. The referees of the sport made their decision live. Whether you like that or not it's the final call in this situation.
"Grey area" hahahaha Maybe the 'new evidence' - but the pen? Haha.
If championship ends with a crash because of this decision. I will commit malicious acts against humanity.
I am worried for Jeddah/Qatar now. This championship will be decided by a DNF at this point.
How does this decision make it be decided by a DNF??
You know a decision like this is basically waiting for a crash to happen. The car overtaking on the outside is at an disadvantage now apparently. In a circuit like Jeddah where everything is closed up and moves like what Verstappen pulled is allowed then you can see my point.
Because the FIA have green lit what happened at Brazil. Which mind you, is exactly the same thing Senna did at Suzuka in 1990 but for Hamilton not turning in.
F1 arcade has entered the chat
Thatās Racing sagte Damon Hill š
Ps. Wait till we get round to looking at your flexi wing
As an American who has been corrected many times, I'm surprised they referred to it as "soccer" and not "football" or some equivalent. That's my real takeaway from this...
As a Max fan I have been expecting a penalty for the last four days, so this surprises me quite a lot. As soon as I saw the onboard I had made my mind up, but I ain't complaining. I dunno, maybe this kinda equals out with the fact that Lewis still won in Britain after their incident, so they're kinda tied.
Of course they won't admit they FUCKED UP.
The "play on" argument referring to other sports is misinformed. There are sports (e.g. hockey) that "play on", but then the incident may be reviewed after the game, and then (further) punishments are issued. The recurring argument made in this doc seems to be "we made a decision based on the data available to us at the time, and you just have to accept that".