9199 replies to this topic

[shure]

That link doesn't provide a logically-consistent answer, though.  It flat-out contradict's Masi's own comments from last year's Eifel GP regarding lapped cars, defines 'leaders' as being top 2 only, argues that to articles override another without there being anything in either of those two articles that makes it clear that this is the case AND gives the RD carte blanche to use the SC in any way he might decide based on his feelings at the time, which is ludicrous - what other professional sport allows one of the officials to change a significant aspect of how he runs a match/race on a whim?

It does contradict earlier comments, true, but strictly speaking that's not relevant to his motivation, which is what the question was asking.  There have been plenty of opportunities over the last year or so for him to research or otherwise have been informed of his apparent rights under 15.3, so even how he got that information is not really relevant to that question.  We only need to know that he is aware that he may (apparently) apply the rulings he has done, and focus only only on why he did it.  And that is contained in his statement.  People may feel there is more to it than that, but then we descend into the realm of fantasy and all that is is largely supposition based on whether you feel he's out of his depth or a criminal mastermind - take your pick.  But for anyone preferring to be objectively minded there's no need to look beyond the factual information we do have.  From his- own statement(s).

Edited by shure, 19 December 2021 - 16:59.

[as65p]

The radio the TV producers choose to play.

Yeah. Surely he's thanking the team for their calls in all those other messages the producers hold back. Probably on order from Masi?

[Bliman]

It does contradict earlier comments, true, but strictly speaking that's not relevant to his motivation, which is what the question was asking. There have been plenty of opportunities over the last year or so for him to research or otherwise have been informed of his apparent rights under 15.3, so even how he got that information is not really relevant to that question. We only need to know that he is aware that he may (apparently) apply the rulings he has done, and focus only only on why he did it. And that is contained in his statement. People may feel there is more to it than that, but then we descend into the realm of fantasy and all that is is largely supposition based on whether you feel he's out of his depth or a criminal mastermind - take your pick. But for anyone preferring to be objectively minded there's no need to look beyond the factual information we do have. From his- own statement(s).

it is not contained in his statement. Just point me to it? It seems pretty difficult to do it seems. I see no justification why he chose those cars to unlap themselves. I see that he has the authority but no motivation for what he had done.

[tifosi]

I was love when people say Mercedes cost Hamilton this or that (works with any team/driver combination).

Fact is without Mercedes Hamilton has a total of 1 WDC.

Edited by tifosi, 19 December 2021 - 17:44.

[cpbell]

It does contradict earlier comments, true, but strictly speaking that's not relevant to his motivation, which is what the question was asking.  There have been plenty of opportunities over the last year or so for him to research or otherwise have been informed of his apparent rights under 15.3, so even how he got that information is not really relevant to that question.  We only need to know that he is aware that he may (apparently) apply the rulings he has done, and focus only only on why he did it.  And that is contained in his statement.  People may feel there is more to it than that, but then we descend into the realm of fantasy and all that is is largely supposition based on whether you feel he's out of his depth or a criminal mastermind - take your pick.  But for anyone preferring to be objectively minded there's no need to look beyond the factual information we do have.  From his- own statement(s).

With respect, I disagree.  What reason have we to say that we may only consider why he felt the need to use this apparent ability in this case, with the question of whether he can do so being verboten?  I'm no Hamilton fan, but even I would say that there is still a question to be answered as to why 15.3 was interpreted the way it was and what this means going forward.  I think this "nothing to see here" attitude is giving Masi too much margin for deciding things on the hoof - doesn't it allow him to throw a Safety Car for competitive reasons, with his get-out clause for doing so being 15.3 and 48:13 covering the fact that, once the field is closed-up, he can call "SC in this lap" approaching the final corner?

Edited by cpbell, 19 December 2021 - 17:44.

[cpbell]

I was love when people say Mercedes cost Hamilton this or that (works with any team/driver combination).

Fact is without Mercedes Hamilton has a total of 0 WDCs.

Well, yes, but without Ford, Renault and Ferrari, Schumacher has 0 as well.

[Timorous]

People wanted other sporting analogies and I think I came up with a really rubbish one but I will share anyway because why not.

 

So It is the Snooker World Championship Final at the Crudible Sheffield. Selby and O'Sullivan are tied going into the final frame Selby has played a small amount better but has not had the rub of the green. Ronnie gets off to a good start with a nice long pot but part way through his break a bad kick results in a missed pot. Fortunately it ends up snookering Selby. Selby comes to the table, plays an escape with a lot of power, misses the reds, hits the black and scatters balls everywhere. The ref calls a foul and a miss but decides because of the time (Selby was doing a full Peter Ebdon here) and a desire to see the champion crowned before midnight that he is not going to fully implement the miss rule* so he forces Ronnie to play from the current position even though it has left him snookered, the ref also decides that instead of a 7 point foul (fouls are 4 points or the value of the colour hit, whichever is higher) it is just a 4 point foul. Ronnie escapes but leaves a pot on. Selby comes back to the table, finishes the clearence and gets over the line by 2 points wining the frame, match and title.

 

*Miss rule explainer. If you are trying to escape from a snooker and you miss the ref may call it as a 'miss' which means the player who set the snooker gets to choose if they want to play from the current position or put all the balls back and let their opponent try again. This is to increase the consequences for trying a cute escape that will leave the cue ball safe rather than the easy escape that may not.

 

Far from a perfect analogy but the closest I could think of where the ref decides to disregard the written rules of the game and create new ones on the spot. Now in reality I expect whoever was comentating would be calling the BS for what it is. I cannot imagine the likes of Steve Davis, John Virgo or Dennis Taylor talking about how hard the refs job is in such a scenario. I also expect the players would be directly talking to the ref because there is no way Selby or Ronnie would be happy with it either. In fact Snooker is a game where players will still call a foul on themselves, it is just part of the games DNA. Finally there is a scooring booth as well and if a ref tried to make this kind of call someone would be overruling them immediately.

[tifosi]

Well, yes, but without Ford, Renault and Ferrari, Schumacher has 0 as well.

 

 Exactly.

[alg7_munif]

it is not contained in his statement. Just point me to it? It seems pretty difficult to do it seems. I see no justification why he chose those cars to unlap themselves. I see that he has the authority but no motivation for what he had done.

Exactly the same when I asked why the RD intentionally did not let the cars behind to race like he did to the top cars, no direct answer, just beating around the bushes.

[FullOppositeLock]

But you are happy to accept that the RD intentionally disregarded the 48.12 rules to let only the top two to race because he arguably has the power to do it while being fully aware the circumstances of the title battle and with full knowledge of the tyre situation regardless whether it plays a part in the decision or not.

How did you come to the conclusion that I am "happy to accept" what you describe? I have said time and time again that to my mind Masi has made an absolute, stinking mess of the safety car restart. How does that translate in your mind to me being happy to accept his judgement or actions? Can you not read, or are you simply not willing to understand my position? What I am "happy to accept" based on the actual text of rule 15.3 is the race director's overriding authority with respect to the use of the safety car, not how he ended up using his authority. Is that clear enough for you now?

[FullOppositeLock]

That link doesn't provide a logically-consistent answer, though.  It flat-out contradict's Masi's own comments from last year's Eifel GP regarding lapped cars, defines 'leaders' as being top 2 only, argues that to articles override another without there being anything in either of those two articles that makes it clear that this is the case AND gives the RD carte blanche to use the SC in any way he might decide based on his feelings at the time, which is ludicrous - what other professional sport allows one of the officials to change a significant aspect of how he runs a match/race on a whim?

I think you've just established that Masi is completely inconsistent in his applications of the rules. Not as if we didn't know that already by his handling of track limits, crowding, leaving the track and gaining an advantage and what have you not.

[cpbell]

I think you've just established that Masi is completely inconsistent in his applications of the rules. Not as if we didn't know that already by his handling of track limits, crowding, leaving the track and gaining an advantage and what have you not.

Agreed, but you seem to be happy to interpret the sporting regulations to give him justification for that inconsistency.

Edited by cpbell, 19 December 2021 - 18:02.

[Hotwheels]

People wanted other sporting analogies and I think I came up with a really rubbish one but I will share anyway because why not.



So It is the Snooker World Championship Final at the Crudible Sheffield. Selby and O'Sullivan are tied going into the final frame Selby has played a small amount better but has not had the rub of the green. Ronnie gets off to a good start with a nice long pot but part way through his break a bad kick results in a missed pot. Fortunately it ends up snookering Selby. Selby comes to the table, plays an escape with a lot of power, misses the reds, hits the black and scatters balls everywhere. The ref calls a foul and a miss but decides because of the time (Selby was doing a full Peter Ebdon here) and a desire to see the champion crowned before midnight that he is not going to fully implement the miss rule* so he forces Ronnie to play from the current position even though it has left him snookered, the ref also decides that instead of a 7 point foul (fouls are 4 points or the value of the colour hit, whichever is higher) it is just a 4 point foul. Ronnie escapes but leaves a pot on. Selby comes back to the table, finishes the clearence and gets over the line by 2 points wining the frame, match and title.

*Miss rule explainer. If you are trying to escape from a snooker and you miss the ref may call it as a 'miss' which means the player who set the snooker gets to choose if they want to play from the current position or put all the balls back and let their opponent try again. This is to increase the consequences for trying a cute escape that will leave the cue ball safe rather than the easy escape that may not.

Far from a perfect analogy but the closest I could think of where the ref decides to disregard the written rules of the game and create new ones on the spot. Now in reality I expect whoever was comentating would be calling the BS for what it is. I cannot imagine the likes of Steve Davis, John Virgo or Dennis Taylor talking about how hard the refs job is in such a scenario. I also expect the players would be directly talking to the ref because there is no way Selby or Ronnie would be happy with it either. In fact Snooker is a game where players will still call a foul on themselves, it is just part of the games DNA. Finally there is a scooring booth as well and if a ref tried to make this kind of call someone would be overruling them immediately.

For me the closest is - the Hand of God - Maradona against England in 86. Even though the referee did not change rules , he was not given a yellow card and the goal stood . Argentina went on to be the champions.

[TennisUK]

I was love when people say Mercedes cost Hamilton this or that (works with any team/driver combination).
Fact is without Mercedes Hamilton has a total of 1 WDC.

Without Red Bull Max Verstappen doesn’t have any F1 starts, let alone wins, or even a single WDC.

Yes, my statement is every bit as vacuous as yours.

[FullOppositeLock]

it is not contained in his statement. Just point me to it? It seems pretty difficult to do it seems. I see no justification why he chose those cars to unlap themselves. I see that he has the authority but no motivation for what he had done.

I'm frankly at a loss that you guys still haven't read the regulations and the stewards' verdict, but let me point you in the right direction as to what Masi was apparently thinking:

 

 

The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would "interfere" in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one
that applied in this case.

The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible it was highly desirable for the race to end in a "green" condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car).

 

Now you may find all sort of things about this (I certainly do!), but why would it be upon the people who can read to defend his reasoning? The FIA provided it in text as per above, so why do you keep asking us what his thinking may have been?

[FullOppositeLock]

Agreed, but you seem to be happy to interpret the sporting regulations to give him justification for that inconsistency.

Not because I want them to, but because they do.

[cpbell]

Not because I want them to, but because they do.

OK, cheers for clarifying.

[Bliman]

I'm frankly at a loss that you guys still haven't read the regulations and the stewards' verdict, but let me point you in the right direction as to what Masi was apparently thinking:

 

 

Now you may find all sort of things about this (I certainly do!), but why would it be upon the people who can read to defend his reasoning? The FIA provided it in text as per above, so why do you keep asking us what his thinking may have been?

But that contains a contradiction. Sainz is one of the leaders. Surely he has to have a motivation for that? You cannot say you do not want to interfere with the leaders and then do just that.

So if that is his motivation then I can only conclude he didn't see Sainz as one of the leaders and only looked at Max, Which I have been saying from the beginning,

[cpbell]

But that contains a contradiction. Sainz is one of the leaders. Surely he has to have a motivation for that? You cannot say you do not want to interfere with the leaders and then do just that.

So if that is his motivation then I can only conclude he didn't see Sainz as one of the leaders and only looked at Max, Which I have been saying from the beginning,

Not just Max, but certainly Max and Lewis, but not Carlos.

[Bliman]

Not just Max, but certainly Max and Lewis, but not Carlos.

But mostly Max. Max has no one he has to look for behind him and with the lapped cars he only has to focus on Hamilton,

[FullOppositeLock]

But that contains a contradiction. Sainz is one of the leaders. Surely he has to have a motivation for that? You cannot say you do not want to interfere with the leaders and then do just that.

So if that is his motivation then I can only conclude he didn't see Sainz as one of the leaders and only looked at Max, Which I have been saying from the beginning,

Clearly Masi didn't consider Sainz to be one of the leaders. Why? That's a question for Masi to answer, isn't it? For what little it's worth I agree with your view. However, why do you keep asking the people making the point that Masi was legally permitted to act as he did why exactly he did what he did, as if we share any responsibility for it? How do you expect us to answer that question other than by pointing out the publicly available info, or why would you even assume that our appraisal of it is any less dim than yours?

[FBJim]

One close example I can think of is the rules for abandoning matches in some sports, where it first lays out the reasons a match can be abandoned but also mentions a referee can abandon a match for any reason if he feels it is unsafe to continue. Like the SC rules, this is probably because abandoning matches is a safety mechanism and it makes sense to give broad power in cases like this. It does not mean that someone who uses this power improperly won't likely answer to the league office, but it's not clear there's any recourse except perhaps in cases where outright corruption can be proven.

[Timorous]

Clearly Masi didn't consider Sainz to be one of the leaders. Why? That's a question for Masi to answer, isn't it? For what little it's worth I agree with your view. However, why do you keep asking the people making the point that Masi was legally permitted to act as he did why exactly he did what he did, as if we share any responsibility for it? How do you expect us to answer that question other than by pointing out the publicly available info, or why would you even assume that our appraisal of it is any less dim than yours?

Because of 1.1.1 of the ISC.

[Singularity]

Exactly the same when I asked why the RD intentionally did not let the cars behind to race like he did to the top cars, no direct answer, just beating around the bushes.

The very easy and direct answer to that is, as I am sure you know: There was not enough time for that. There was only, barely, enough time for the two championship contenders to race for the championship. 

[FullOppositeLock]

Because of 1.1.1 of the ISC.

What is that in answer to?

[Bliman]

Clearly Masi didn't consider Sainz to be one of the leaders. Why? That's a question for Masi to answer, isn't it? For what little it's worth I agree with your view. However, why do you keep asking the people making the point that Masi was legally permitted to act as he did why exactly he did what he did, as if we share any responsibility for it? How do you expect us to answer that question other than by pointing out the publicly available info, or why would you even assume that our appraisal of it is any less dim than yours?

But that is the thing. I heard several times here he gave his motivation. While it has not been given. I would like to know why Sainz is not considered as one of the leaders and why there was a separation of competitors (and I have been saying that for a very long time now) I have not read an explanation in the report or by anyone else.

Of course, you or someone here don't share any responsibility. I thought something like that is obvious. No, I want to come to some sort of understanding and consensus for those that matter in what happened. That is all, We have had a discussion of what all the rules mean and how it would apply and such why can't we talk about this? It is a crucial question imo, It is the heart of the matter. Did he only look at Hamilton and Max and with that unfairly advantaged Max.

[Bliman]

The very easy and direct answer to that is, as I am sure you know: There was not enough time for that. There was only, barely, enough time for the two championship contenders to race for the championship. 

That is also not correct. If he wanted to have a lap racing he easily could have let those lapped cars stay,

[TennisUK]

Because of 1.1.1 of the ISC.

And there’s the even biggest problem - even if we ignore that it was only a kangaroo court who found that what Masi did was Ok, and even if we ignore that 1.1.1 requires the FIA to uphold sporting integrity… if its ok to allow the steward to fiddle the end of a race we are all watching inauthentic trash.

(This applies regardless of who wins, incidentally).

Edited by TennisUK, 19 December 2021 - 18:34.

[FullOppositeLock]

But that is the thing. I heard several times here he gave his motivation. While it has not been given. I would like to know why Sainz is not considered as one of the leaders and why there was a separation of competitors (and I have been saying that for a very long time now) I have not read an explanation in the report or by anyone else.

Of course, you or someone here don't share any responsibility. I thought something like that is obvious. No, I want to come to some sort of understanding and consensus for those that matter in what happened. That is all, We have had a discussion of what all the rules mean and how it would apply and such why can't we talk about this? It is a crucial question imo, It is the heart of the matter. Did he only look at Hamilton and Max and with that unfairly advantaged Max.

It was not not given, it was partially given. Masi apparently likes to do things partially. Us speculating about the missing part may be fun, but it doesn't really add much to what happened and why. I guess we'll have to wait for the review report to learn more details.

[Singularity]

That is also not correct. If he wanted to have a lap racing he easily could have let those lapped cars stay,

Jeebuz, that is another question. Read the question I answered, don't make up questions that does not fit my answer.

[Bliman]

It was not not given, it was partially given. Masi apparently likes to do things partially. Us speculating about the missing part may be fun, but it doesn't really add much to what happened and why. I guess we'll have to wait for the review report to learn more details.

Maybe I want to extract too much information and understand it all. But then we also must say we don't know his motivation either. And I heard numerous times that the report gave his motivation. This is not true,

And to me, they should have done that. Because with the explanation in the report the race should be scrapped or turned back to just before the safety car,

[Bliman]

Jeebuz, that is another question. Read the question I answered, don't make up questions that does not fit my answer.

I have read the question. It was this "Exactly the same when I asked why the RD intentionally did not let the cars behind to race like he did to the top cars, no direct answer, just beating around the bushes."

Which part of my answer doesn't correlate with it?

[Timorous]

What is that in answer to?

because even if 15.3 allows Masi to ignore 48.12 it must be done in compliance with 1.1.1 and only 5 cars does not achieve it.

[jjcale]

Why are some people taking it as "fact" that Masi had the power to do as he liked? 

 

The only people who said this are the unqualified stewards at the track - the WMSC did not make a ruling as Merc withdrew the appeal. 

 

The stewards were

 

• Garry Connelly - Connelly has been an FIA steward and FIA Observer since 1989, working in, among other series, Formula 1. 
• Felix Holter - Holter is a member of the FIA International Stewards Panel, and began stewarding in 2007. He's been a permanent steward for DTM since 2013, though has worked on WTCC, F3 and ADAC GT Masters and more in the past.
• Derek Warwick - Warwick will be the driver steward in Abu Dhabi. He competed in 146 F1 races between 1981 and 1993 (taking four podiums in that time), and won the World Sportscar Championship in 1992. He's currently Vice-President of the FIA Drivers' Commission.
• Mohamed Alhashmi - Alhasmi works in the Abu Dhabi government as Head of Road Safety, and has been involved in motorsport since the Yas Marina circuit opened in 2009. He was the national steward for the 2020 F1 finale, and has worked on both F2 and F3 races in the past. 

 

None of these are people whose opinions would be sought on the interpretation of the regulation that Masi claims made him all but God. ... and I say that even though I know that Connelly is a WMSC member. 

 

Edit - and it should be remembered that the FIA has set up a commission to look into what exactly happened and what improvements can be made in the future ... hardly a ringing endorsement of what Masi did. 

Edited by jjcale, 19 December 2021 - 18:57.

[Clrnc]

people on this board were saying this even before they announced they were going to appeal, and if they knew it, then it's pretty much a dead cert that Toto and his highly regarded "top QC" knew this as well.  Which means it was all bluster and posturing all along.  I think 'for the good of motorsport' is great for PR but belongs in that category, too

Most people knew it except a select few I think, who were very extreme in their views and kept hoping Merc pull out of all FIA series, Hamilton retires in spite and Merc goes to CAS or they stop watching F1 entirely and then start creating many threads etc on the same topic and how they could overturn the result, Max is fake champion, underserving and cheated. 

 

I think the good thing to come out of this is that this farce should rightfully never happen again and Masi will need to think twice before making any ridiculous calls.  When all is said and done people will laugh back at this but it will hardly matter in the grand scheme of it. 

[FullOppositeLock]

Maybe I want to extract too much information and understand it all. But then we also must say we don't know his motivation either. And I heard numerous times that the report gave his motivation. This is not true,

And to me, they should have done that. Because with the explanation in the report the race should be scrapped or turned back to just before the safety car,

The stewards' report does contain some info with respect to his motivation. Surely you can't deny this? The "problem" is that you want to keep asking "why?" to a person not involved in the discussion, so it's a bit unclear what you are expecting.

 

Q: Why did Masi only allow the lapped cars between the drivers in first and second position to unlap themselves?

 

A: based on what we know: "The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would "interfere" in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one that applied in this case. The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible it was highly desirable for the race to end in a "green" condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car)."

 

Q: But why did he not consider Sainz in third to be part of the leaders?

 

....

 

Maybe you could write FIA a letter asking this question?

 

Your last line is just a figment of your imagination frankly. There is no rule underpinning what Masi ended up doing, but there sure as hell isn't one to do what you suggested either, so what gives? The crucial fact of the matter is that Masi was entitled by the regulations to make decisions with respect to the use of the safety car, which he did.... badly.

[Huffer]

Overriding authority full stop. That’s what the rule states, and that’s obviously as it’s been applied, the application of which was reviewed by the stewards on Mercedes request, after which the stewards confirmed it too.

 

No. It states that the RD had overriding authority of the COTC's decisions in specific areas where the COTC has the role of deciding which action to take, such as the safety car. The rule 15.3 does NOT grant the race director special powers to ignore or change the rules,. It lays out how the COTC may operate and how they interact with with Race Director, and whose judgments have superiority. To say that it gives the RD more power than that is a gross, and I might add in this case purposeful, misinterpretation of the wording of the rule. 

 

In fact, the sporting code clearly states that the Race Director must adhere to the sporting code. And not only that, but the Race Director must follow ALL provisions of the sporting code. The Race Director cannot pick and choose which parts of which regulations they will follow. If the RD decides to let all lapped cars pass during the safety car in contradiction to the COTC, then ALL provisions of that rule MUST be followed. No exceptions.

 

Here's the relevant piece of the regs from 2.1 ( emphasis my own );

1. All drivers, Competitors and officials participating in the Championship undertake, on behalf of themselves, their employees, agents and suppliers, to observe all the provisions as supplemented or amended of the International Sporting Code (the Code), the Formula One Technical Regulations (Technical Regulations), the Formula One Financial Regulations (Financial Regulations) and the present Sporting Regulations together referred to as “the Regulations”.

 

Edited by Huffer, 19 December 2021 - 18:57.

[FullOppositeLock]

because even if 15.3 allows Masi to ignore 48.12 it must be done in compliance with 1.1.1 and only 5 cars does not achieve it.

I don't see how that relates to what I wrote:

 

 

FullOppositeLock, on 19 Dec 2021 - 19:21, said:

Clearly Masi didn't consider Sainz to be one of the leaders. Why? That's a question for Masi to answer, isn't it? For what little it's worth I agree with your view. However, why do you keep asking the people making the point that Masi was legally permitted to act as he did why exactly he did what he did, as if we share any responsibility for it? How do you expect us to answer that question other than by pointing out the publicly available info, or why would you even assume that our appraisal of it is any less dim than yours?

 

So again, which of my questions is "Because of 1.1.1 of the ISC." the answer to?

[Singularity]

I have read the question. It was this "Exactly the same when I asked why the RD intentionally did not let the cars behind to race like he did to the top cars, no direct answer, just beating around the bushes."

Which part of my answer doesn't correlate with it?

The answer is still the same: THERE WAS NO TIME FOR THAT! Do yo get it or should I increase the font size? 

You claim to understand, then you come up with: "That is also not correct. If he wanted to have a lap racing he easily could have let those lapped cars stay,"

I don't know what answer you are searching for, maybe you believe you have a "gotcha" angle, but it is just a pointless arguments about a scenario that did not happen. Masi obviously wanted more than just "a lap of racing", he wanted a lap of racing for the championship. 

I know you have been going on about Sainz since day 1, but seriously, nobody else cares about Sainz, it is only you. 

[jjcale]

The answer is still the same: THERE WAS NO TIME FOR THAT! Do yo get it or should I increase the font size? 

You claim to understand, then you come up with: "That is also not correct. If he wanted to have a lap racing he easily could have let those lapped cars stay,"

I don't know what answer you are searching for, maybe you believe you have a "gotcha" angle, but it is just a pointless arguments about a scenario that did not happen. Masi obviously wanted more than just "a lap of racing", he wanted a lap of racing for the championship. 

I know you have been going on about Sainz since day 1, but seriously, nobody else cares about Sainz, it is only you. 

 

This is possibly the worst argument Ive seen made on this forum ...

[TennisUK]

The answer is still the same: THERE WAS NO TIME FOR THAT! Do yo get it or should I increase the font size?

You claim to understand, then you come up with: "That is also not correct. If he wanted to have a lap racing he easily could have let those lapped cars stay,"

I don't know what answer you are searching for, maybe you believe you have a "gotcha" angle, but it is just a pointless arguments about a scenario that did not happen. Masi obviously wanted more than just "a lap of racing", he wanted a lap of racing for the championship.

I know you have been going on about Sainz since day 1, but seriously, nobody else cares about Sainz, it is only you.

Agreed, this is probably the worst argument of the whole thread. It completely misses the point, legally as well as in terms of meaning of the sport’s integrity.

[Singularity]

This is possibly the worst argument Ive seen made on this forum ...

It is not an argument, it is just how it was. People keep asking "why, why oh why?" When the answer is very simple. "Did Masi make the right decision?" is another question, but people who ask "why" it happened obviously need an answer.  

Edited by Singularity, 19 December 2021 - 19:04.

[Bliman]

The stewards' report does contain some info with respect to his motivation. Surely you can't deny this? The "problem" is that you want to keep asking "why?" to a person not involved in the discussion, so it's a bit unclear what you are expecting.

 

Q: Why did Masi only allow the lapped cars between the drivers in first and second position to unlap themselves?

 

A: based on what we know: "The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would "interfere" in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one that applied in this case. The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible it was highly desirable for the race to end in a "green" condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car)."

 

Q: But why did he not consider Sainz in third to be part of the leaders?

 

....

 

Maybe you could write FIA a letter asking this question?

 

Your last line is just a figment of your imagination frankly. There is no rule underpinning what Masi ended up doing, but there sure as hell isn't one to do what you suggested either, so what gives? The crucial fact of the matter is that Masi was entitled by the regulations to make decisions with respect to the use of the safety car, which he did.... badly.

What I want? I thought this was a forum where we discuss things, Many have been discussing what this or that means. So I see no reason why this cannot be discussed. So his motivation was not to interfere with the leaders. Where can I read his motivation why he doesn't consider Sainz as one.

I just cannot find that info.

Because really I don't see it, So I guess we cannot discuss what he could be thinking. We cannot ask the question why he doesn't consider Sainz as one of them. We also cannot infer something out of it either it seems, So basically we have to wait for information that probably will never come,

[Bliman]

The answer is still the same: THERE WAS NO TIME FOR THAT! Do yo get it or should I increase the font size? 

You claim to understand, then you come up with: "That is also not correct. If he wanted to have a lap racing he easily could have let those lapped cars stay,"

I don't know what answer you are searching for, maybe you believe you have a "gotcha" angle, but it is just a pointless arguments about a scenario that did not happen. Masi obviously wanted more than just "a lap of racing", he wanted a lap of racing for the championship. 

I know you have been going on about Sainz since day 1, but seriously, nobody else cares about Sainz, it is only you. 

Maybe you don't care about racing but I do. If we don't have that we have nothing anymore.

I know you said there was no time for that. I read it the first time ok, If there is no time he also can decide to not let those cars unlap themself,

But this is the most telling "Masi obviously wanted more than just "a lap of racing", he wanted a lap of racing for the championship. " .

I think excactly the same I think he only had Hamilton and Max in his thoughts and didn't consider that Sainz could play a role in the championship and race.

[FullOppositeLock]

 

No. It states that the RD had overriding authority of the COTC's decisions in specific areas where the COTC has the role of deciding which action to take, such as the safety car. The rule 15.3 does NOT grant the race director special powers to ignore or change the rules,. It lays out how the COTC may operate and how they interact with with Race Director, and whose judgments have superiority. To say that it gives the RD more power than that is a gross, and I might add in this case purposeful, misinterpretation of the wording of the rule. 

 

In fact, the sporting code clearly states that the Race Director must adhere to the sporting code. And not only that, but the Race Director must follow ALL provisions of the sporting code. The Race Director cannot pick and choose which parts of which regulations they will follow. If the RD decides to let all lapped cars pass during the safety car in contradiction to the COTC, then ALL provisions of that rule MUST be followed. No exceptions.

 

Here's the relevant piece of the regs from 2.1 ( emphasis my own );

1. All drivers, Competitors and officials participating in the Championship undertake, on behalf of themselves, their employees, agents and suppliers, to observe all the provisions as supplemented or amended of the International Sporting Code (the Code), the Formula One Technical Regulations (Technical Regulations), the Formula One Financial Regulations (Financial Regulations) and the present Sporting Regulations together referred to as “the Regulations”.

 

 

I spent most of Friday evening explaining to people in here what article 15.3 actually states, and shure has done much more often and eloquently on many occasions too. Article 15.3 gives the race director overriding authority with respect to the use of the safety car. If you don't believe me, and since you now refer to the FIA International Sporting Code please consider article 11.10 of that code as below, noting the title of the article (Duties of the race director), paragraph 11.10.3 stating unequivocally that the race director has overriding authority (pleins pouvoirs as per the French text, i.e. full authority) and the five sub-paragraphs a to e, specifically the last one):

 

 

The suggestion that article 15.3 only gives the race director to overrule the clerk of the course is pure hogwash. In fact, the clerk of the course has no authority whatsoever on the matters specified without express agreement from the race director.

 

Oh damn, I promised myself not to do this again...

[Lotusse7en]

For me the closest is - the Hand of God - Maradona against England in 86. Even though the referee did not change rules , he was not given a yellow card and the goal stood . Argentina went on to be the champions.

Not close enough. Max and Lewis did not have "a hand" in this, like Maradona had as a player 

[TennisUK]

It is not an argument, it is just how it was. People keep asking "why, why oh why?" When the answer is very simple.

It’s not simple - the simple choice would have been for Masi to have picked one of the two options available under the rules that would have permitted a green flag restart.

1: red flag the race and have a couple of lap dash to the flag.
2: use safety car, keep lapped runners in place and have a 1 lap restart.

The question is, why did he instead opt to invent a new procedure for the safety car restart (that happened to provide a huge advantage to one competitor) instead of using one of the two options available to him under the regulations?

Edited by TennisUK, 19 December 2021 - 19:28.

[Huffer]

I spent most of Friday evening explaining to people in here what article 15.3 actually states, and shure has done much more often and eloquently on many occasions too. Article 15.3 gives the race director overriding authority with respect to the use of the safety car. 

 

The use of the safety car - he does not have the power to pick and choose which parts of the rules he can follow regarding the SC. All I can say is that you must have spent most of Friday night arguing because you were having to come up with some pretty convoluted logic to explain your position. The rule is clear, together with 2.1, that the Race Director MUST follow the regulations as set out. If the RD decides that lapped cars can now overtake, then that's fine. But ALL of the relevant regulation must be followed. That means that all lapped cars must be allowed to pass, and the SC does not come in until the following lap.

[FullOppositeLock]

The use of the safety car - he does not have the power to pick and choose which parts of the rules he can follow regarding the SC. All I can say is that you must have spent most of Friday night arguing because you were having to come up with some pretty convoluted logic to explain your position. The rule is clear, together with 2.1, that the Race Director MUST follow the regulations as set out. If the RD decides that lapped cars can now overtake, then that's fine. But ALL of the relevant regulation must be followed. That means that all lapped cars must be allowed to pass, and the SC does not come in until the following lap.

Article 48 of the F1 sporting regulations is called "Use of the safety car". Clearly the race director, the stewards and FIA don't agree with you that "the use of the safety car" means anything else than "the use of the safety car". As for the rest, clearly you have a different understanding of the meaning of overriding authority/pleins pouvoirs (which translates to absolute or full power).

[Ivanhoe]

Looks like this thread has run it’s course, we’re all awaiting the report of the FIA’s commission. Please discuss further here