106 replies to this topic

[Broekschaap]

So there is a new judgement of the ICA on a very different case. I find it an interesting read. Especially about who can and who cannot annul a race (spoiler the ICA can and the stewards only under certain circumstances). It also seems in contradiction with earlier ICA cases quoted in this topic. Following this judgement its doubtfull if the stewards had the power to cancel the race at the time.

 

https://www.fia.com/...sion_en-web.pdf

 

Oh and don't let point 55 distract you

 

edit: my intention was to discuss the ICA judgement in relation to Singapore 2008. But hey i did hit wrong button and accidently opened AD21. Yeah, yeah i should have known by mentioning #55. Have fun with it now you can!

Edited by Broekschaap, 07 February 2024 - 13:43.

[Brackets]

After that post, I can't be the only one who will have only read #55?

 

 

(I wasn't disappointed either )

[Timorous]

After that post, I can't be the only one who will have only read #55?

 

 

(I wasn't disappointed either )

 

Shame the relevant thread got locked years ago, guess the fallout will spill to all other semi relevant threads instead and then mods will have lots of cleanup to do.

[FLB]

Oh God, 55 and 54.

 

 

Essentially, that's the FIA saying that if Abu Dhabi 2021 were to be reopened, Hamilton has another championship...

 

 

 

54. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Race Director did not apply Article 37.6 of the Regulations and Articles 2.10.12 and 2.10.13 of the Code, even though it was her responsibility to use the Safety Car properly as provided under Article 11.10.3.e of the Code.

 

55. On this point, the Court rejects the Appellant’s submissions according to which the Race Director did not commit a breach of the Regulations and the Code, but simply used her “overriding authority” to apply the rules on the Safety Car according to the circumstances of the Race. The Court finds that independently from all circumstances, the Regulations and the Code must be fully applied not only by the competitors, but also by the Race Officials. In other words, the “overriding authority” of the Race Director when it comes to the management of the Safety Car is not a carte blanche which would allow her to amend the rules when she deems it necessary

[Broekschaap]

Oh God, 55 and 54.

 

 

Essentially, that's the FIA saying that if Abu Dhabi 2021 were to be reopened, Hamilton has another championship...

Fair enough i didn't say you shouldn't be distracted by 54...

[Timorous]

57 and 59 as well.

 

 

57. The Court thus finds that the Race Director did commit a breach of the regulations and that given the devolutive effect of the appeal and the powers conferred to the Court under Articles 10.10.1 and 10.10.2 of the JDR, such breach could lead to the annulment or amendment of the classification, should the Court find such a consequence appropriate.

 

59. The Court indeed finds that this power of the ICA must be used under very restrictive circumstances, given its specificity within the judicial framework of the FIA and its impact on a competition. In that context, the principle of “sporting fairness” anchored under Article 1.1.1 of the Code, which describes this principle as “fundamental”, must be central in the decision of the Court. As a consequence, the fundamental principle of sporting fairness must be considered as one of the cornerstones of any action taken by the FIA, its internal organs or any legal entity subject to the Code.

 

So in essence had it gone to the ICA and had this been the framework used they would have reverted to 1.1.1 and from there the conclusion is pretty straightforward because there is only a single fair option in that particular circumstance given it was the very last lap.

[Beri]

So there is a new judgement of the ICA on a very different case. I find it an interesting read. Especially about who can and who cannot annul a race (spoiler the ICA can and the stewards only under certain circumstances). It also seems in contradiction with earlier ICA cases quoted in this topic. Following this judgement its doubtfull if the stewards had the power to cancel the race at the time.

 

https://www.fia.com/...sion_en-web.pdf

 

Oh and don't let point 55 distract you

 

Just a little reminder that this is in light of a different rule book with different safety car procedures.

[PayasYouRace]

I've split this out. Hope I've captured the TLDR gist of it in the thread title.

[Goron3]

I'm a bit confused by this. It is claiming that the race result would be amended, or the result scrapped entirely?

[Timorous]

Just a little reminder that this is in light of a different rule book with different safety car procedures.

 

13.4 of the GT Open 2023 regs and 15.3 of the 2021 F1 sporting regs are copy paste the same.

 

The safety car rules are slightly different but that does not change the fact that Masi did not follow the rules as written at all in 2021 and this is stated in the news article here. https://www.fia.com/...il-decisions-25

 

 

 

• The Race Director called the safety car back into the pit lane without it having completed an additional lap as required by the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations (Article 48.12).

 

So the ICA decision on para 54 stands, it is not disputed that Masi did not follow the procedure in the 2021 F1 sporting regs. para 55 would then stand meaning overriding authority in 15.3 refers to the race director having authority over the clerk of the course rather than over the regs themselves. 57 would stand in finding the ICA would have the ability to annul or amend the results of the race and 59 would stand refering to 1.1.1 of the code which remains the same as that is the fundamental point of sporting fairness.

 

 In the circumstances of AD 2021 the result, had the correct safety car procedure been followed after the order for some cars to unlap was given on lap 57, is that the race ends behind the safety car like it did in Brazil 2012. As such when you apply the principal of sporting fairness to that case the only fair conclusion would be to revert to the race order prior to Masi's breach of the regulation which occurred on L57 when he brought the SC in early.

[Timorous]

I'm a bit confused by this. It is claiming that the race result would be amended, or the result scrapped entirely?

 

In the case presented a safety car in the middle of the race was not restarted per the regs. The stewards let it stand and that decision was appealed. In the 1st instance it was decided that the race be cancelled / annulled because of the breach of regs by the race director. This decision was appealed by a different team to the ICA who looked at it. The document states that in this case, because there were knock on effects of the stewards decision (penalties that got applied) in later races and that the 2nd tier body did not have the authority to cancel the race that their decision is reverted to that of the stewards where the race stands. The decision hinges on sporting fairness and by cancelling / amending the results of this GT race they cannot maintain sporting fairness due to down stream impacts such as not knowing what would have happened if the SC in this case was actually run per the regs.

 

The AD case would be different in that regard because it was the last lap of the last race of the season so sporting fairness would come into play and in those exact circumstances the calculus is different due to the fact we know exactly what would have happened if the SC had been run per the rules. 

 

EDIT: The paras that have been quoted above refer to the argument around article 15.3 which is overriding authority over the SC which was shot down here and if the ICA would have the ability to amend / annul the result which in the case of a race director not following the regs the feel they would do. In the GT case as presented they chose not to because it would have a series of knock on events which they feel would go against 1.1.1 which is sporting fairness. 

Edited by Timorous, 07 February 2024 - 12:37.

[Marklar]

there was also a interesting case in F4 last year in Monza: back then a marshall showed wrong flags during a SC that contradicted other signals, half of the field reacted to the marshal, the others not. This caused for example P4 to take the lead and P1 to drop to P8. The race later finished in pretty much that order. However, weeks later they decided to take the results from the lap before the SC and due to the short distance awarded half points. So this is already the 2nd case at least since Abu Dhabi that shows that something could have been done about mistakes or rule breeches committed by FIA personnel...

[Timorous]

there was also a interesting case in F4 last year in Monza: back then a marshall showed wrong flags during a SC that contradicted other signals, half of the field reacted to the marshal, the others not. This caused for example P4 to take the lead and P1 to drop to P8. The race later finished in pretty much that order. However, weeks later they decided to take the results from the lap before the SC and due to the short distance awarded half points. So this is already the 2nd case at least since Abu Dhabi that shows that something could have been done about mistakes or rule breeches committed by FIA personnel...

 

The question is though would the ICA have used the same logic when it comes to dealing with AD 2021 or would they have found some contortion to rule differently? If you apply these cases to AD2021 then it is pretty slam dunk but if AD 2021 goes 1st I think something different happens just because of the profile.

[BelievableNonsense]

Oh no. Oh no oh no. Not this again 

 

I've only just managed to get over this and start appreciating F1 again. Please AD21 stay in the past 

[F1Frog]

Maybe it's just me and other people feel differently, but personally I don't really care anymore what the exact wording says and whether there is a case to appeal. At the time, I would have liked for Mercedes to appeal but 2024 is just too late. It's part of the long and fascinating history of Formula 1 now. I think everybody can recognise that Michael Masi went against the rules of the sport and Lewis Hamilton was robbed of the world championship in 2021, whether he has a legal case to get the race annulled or the results set to another lap, or nothing at all. You can debate whether he was the deserving champion until the cows come home, talking about Bahrain, Imola, Baku, Silverstone, Hungary, Monza, Brazil, Jeddah and anything else you fancy across the season, but on the day they had equal points, and if the rules had been followed correctly then the race would have finished behind the safety car and Hamilton would be champion. Suzuka 1989 was all a big mess and is now a great story to read about long into the future, and one day Abu Dhabi 2021 will be the same. Lewis Hamilton should be the world champion, but Max Verstappen is the world champion and that shouldn't be put into question three years later.

[DW46]

Maybe it's just me and other people feel differently, but personally I don't really care anymore what the exact wording says and whether there is a case to appeal. At the time, I would have liked for Mercedes to appeal but 2024 is just too late. It's part of the long and fascinating history of Formula 1 now. I think everybody can recognise that Michael Masi went against the rules of the sport and Lewis Hamilton was robbed of the world championship in 2021, whether he has a legal case to get the race annulled or the results set to another lap, or nothing at all. You can debate whether he was the deserving champion until the cows come home, talking about Bahrain, Imola, Baku, Silverstone, Hungary, Monza, Brazil, Jeddah and anything else you fancy across the season, but on the day they had equal points, and if the rules had been followed correctly then the race would have finished behind the safety car and Hamilton would be champion. Suzuka 1989 was all a big mess and is now a great story to read about long into the future, and one day Abu Dhabi 2021 will be the same. Lewis Hamilton should be the world champion, but Max Verstappen is the world champion and that shouldn't be put into question three years later.

Oh I agree with that, could do without the Horner gaslighting about strategy and pit stops a few weeks back mind. My only remaining interest in AD21 is Masi’s motive which I suspect we will never know.

Is it time for @Beamer to do a “Still?” Post for old times sake.

[ensign14]

In the case presented a safety car in the middle of the race was not restarted per the regs. The stewards let it stand and that decision was appealed. In the 1st instance it was decided that the race be cancelled / annulled because of the breach of regs by the race director. This decision was appealed by a different team to the ICA who looked at it. The document states that in this case, because there were knock on effects of the stewards decision (penalties that got applied) in later races and that the 2nd tier body did not have the authority to cancel the race that their decision is reverted to that of the stewards where the race stands. The decision hinges on sporting fairness and by cancelling / amending the results of this GT race they cannot maintain sporting fairness due to down stream impacts such as not knowing what would have happened if the SC in this case was actually run per the regs.

 

The AD case would be different in that regard because it was the last lap of the last race of the season so sporting fairness would come into play and in those exact circumstances the calculus is different due to the fact we know exactly what would have happened if the SC had been run per the rules. 

 

 

Sporting fairness applied here as well - it was a question of balance, given that the result had effects on things like success ballast (and if there's ever an argument that that abortion of Communism should be abolished, here it is) and how teams approached the points position. 

 

The ICA knew that, whatever decision it made, SOMEone was going to lose out.  Given the show car was in the middle of a race and there was time to make up, and there were other races in the season afterwards, it decided that the balance of fairness was in favour of the "original" champions.

 

Whereas with AD the balance of fairness is obvious.  Nobody made any decisions consequent on what Masi did.  The person who should have lost out post-AD was the one who was not going to win the title until Masi murdered the rule book.

[F1Frog]

Oh I agree with that, could do without the Horner gaslighting about strategy and pit stops a few weeks back mind. My only remaining interest in AD21 is Masi’s motive which I suspect we will never know.

Is it time for @Beamer to do a “Still?” Post for old times sake.

Yes, good point. I too would still like to know Masi’s motive. I am very confident he did it due to the pressure for entertainment, but whether it was his own decision or an order from someone higher up at Liberty or the FIA, we will never know.

[DW46]

Yes, good point. I too would still like to know Masi’s motive. I am very confident he did it due to the pressure for entertainment, but whether it was his own decision or an order from someone higher up at Liberty or the FIA, we will never know.

I’m split between lost his marbles under pressure or given vague direction from above to keep it interesting till the last minute - which seemed to be the MO in the second half of the year.

[ensign14]

It was a bit like that bloke who became feted amongst neo-Nazis for going to Auschwitz, chiselling a bit of plaster from the wall, and declaring he could not find any traces of Zyklon B.  Someone who was in way over their head and wanted to be famous for a mega discovery.

[ANF]

To get a better understanding of what the OP is all about, here's what it looked like on TV: https://www.youtube....G5ZisApg?t=2499 With 31:32 left on the clock you can see the beached car that leads to the SC eventually being deployed with 29:11 left on the clock. With 28:39 left you can see the SC reversing off the track and then picking up the wrong car, and with 26:45 left it occurs to one of the commentators that he SC hasn't picked up the leader...

Edited by ANF, 07 February 2024 - 14:41.

[Timorous]

Sporting fairness applied here as well - it was a question of balance, given that the result had effects on things like success ballast (and if there's ever an argument that that abortion of Communism should be abolished, here it is) and how teams approached the points position. 

 

The ICA knew that, whatever decision it made, SOMEone was going to lose out.  Given the show car was in the middle of a race and there was time to make up, and there were other races in the season afterwards, it decided that the balance of fairness was in favour of the "original" champions.

 

Whereas with AD the balance of fairness is obvious.  Nobody made any decisions consequent on what Masi did.  The person who should have lost out post-AD was the one who was not going to win the title until Masi murdered the rule book.

 

Agreed.

 

If you apply the reasoning used in this GT case to AD 2021 then there is only 1 sportingly fair course of action which would be to set the finishing positions to those as at the end of L56 / start of L57 before Masi clearly and unambiguously breached the regulations.

 

By the same token if you apply this reasoning to Singapore 2008 you might be able to argue for Alonso to be DQd because he was driving for the team that cheated but beyond that I don't see any sportingly fair grounds for an Annulment.

[JimmyClark]

The problem with not annulling the race altogether is that it is still quite an arbitrary point to cut it off - had the safety car rule infringement happened on lap 10 instead (not saying it would have done obviously, but there are all manner of ways safety car rules can be breached), then do we only go from the first 9 laps? Or any other point in the race it may be. 

 

The fairest thing, if there is a major breach of sporting regulations that materially affect a race result, is to annul the race. Because any corrective action is also seen as unfair interference - who's to say that Hamiltion, in this case ,wouldn't have had a puncture/engine failure/gearbox problem/mistake etc. on the final lap? Very unlikely, but not without precedent.  

[FortiFord]

The problem with not annulling the race altogether is that it is still quite an arbitrary point to cut it off - had the safety car rule infringement happened on lap 10 instead (not saying it would have done obviously, but there are all manner of ways safety car rules can be breached), then do we only go from the first 9 laps? Or any other point in the race it may be. 

 

The fairest thing, if there is a major breach of sporting regulations that materially affect a race result, is to annul the race. Because any corrective action is also seen as unfair interference - who's to say that Hamiltion, in this case ,wouldn't have had a puncture/engine failure/gearbox problem/mistake etc. on the final lap? Very unlikely, but not without precedent.  

 

Because we know that Hamilton didn't have a puncture/engine failure/gearbox problem on L58. 

 

AD21 is fairly unique in that it was the last lap of the last race. There is virtually no uncertainty as to how the decision impacted the rest of the race/season. 

 

If the SC was earlier, then it does become a more difficult decision. 

[FortiFord]

Maybe it's just me and other people feel differently, but personally I don't really care anymore what the exact wording says and whether there is a case to appeal. At the time, I would have liked for Mercedes to appeal but 2024 is just too late. It's part of the long and fascinating history of Formula 1 now. I think everybody can recognise that Michael Masi went against the rules of the sport and Lewis Hamilton was robbed of the world championship in 2021, whether he has a legal case to get the race annulled or the results set to another lap, or nothing at all. You can debate whether he was the deserving champion until the cows come home, talking about Bahrain, Imola, Baku, Silverstone, Hungary, Monza, Brazil, Jeddah and anything else you fancy across the season, but on the day they had equal points, and if the rules had been followed correctly then the race would have finished behind the safety car and Hamilton would be champion. Suzuka 1989 was all a big mess and is now a great story to read about long into the future, and one day Abu Dhabi 2021 will be the same. Lewis Hamilton should be the world champion, but Max Verstappen is the world champion and that shouldn't be put into question three years later.

 

I care. There was plenty of gaslighting by Horner and others, claiming that Masi did nothing wrong. There was also plenty of mental gymnastics on here (and by the stewards) regarding Masi's "overriding authority", which has finally been put to bed now. 

[Muppetmad]

For me, this doesn't change anything. The situation was crystal clear at the time, and it's still crystal clear now. The FIA has acknowledged fault, and Mercedes decided to give up its right to pursue the matter further. I don't think there's any more to be said.

[Timorous]

The problem with not annulling the race altogether is that it is still quite an arbitrary point to cut it off - had the safety car rule infringement happened on lap 10 instead (not saying it would have done obviously, but there are all manner of ways safety car rules can be breached), then do we only go from the first 9 laps? Or any other point in the race it may be. 

 

The fairest thing, if there is a major breach of sporting regulations that materially affect a race result, is to annul the race. Because any corrective action is also seen as unfair interference - who's to say that Hamiltion, in this case ,wouldn't have had a puncture/engine failure/gearbox problem/mistake etc. on the final lap? Very unlikely, but not without precedent.  

 

If it happened at a point in the race after cars were lapped but before the very very end then letting the result stand is probably the fairest as you would have no way of knowing what happened.

 

OTOH I don't think any rule would have been breached earlier in the race, time pressure was one of the reasons he broke the rules, take that away and he treats it like every other SC he has had.

 

Annulling a race due to a breach by the RD where you know with more certainty than is required for a criminal conviction what the result would be had the rules been followed is in no way shape or form following the doctrine of sporting fairness.

Edited by Timorous, 07 February 2024 - 16:11.

[Myrvold]

The problem with not annulling the race altogether is that it is still quite an arbitrary point to cut it off - had the safety car rule infringement happened on lap 10 instead (not saying it would have done obviously, but there are all manner of ways safety car rules can be breached), then do we only go from the first 9 laps? Or any other point in the race it may be.

As shown in the F4 race. Yes.
 

The fairest thing, if there is a major breach of sporting regulations that materially affect a race result, is to annul the race. Because any corrective action is also seen as unfair interference - who's to say that Hamiltion, in this case ,wouldn't have had a puncture/engine failure/gearbox problem/mistake etc. on the final lap? Very unlikely, but not without precedent.

That argument can be used for any kind of stoppage. A red flag running longer than expected. When the decision to throw a red flag for rain is made etc.

[JimmyClark]

Because we know that Hamilton didn't have a puncture/engine failure/gearbox problem on L58. 

 

AD21 is fairly unique in that it was the last lap of the last race. There is virtually no uncertainty as to how the decision impacted the rest of the race/season. 

 

If the SC was earlier, then it does become a more difficult decision. 

 

But different conditions can produce different outcomes, you just don't know (e.g. see the 'brake magic' moment at Baku). Whilst in this case it might be valid to reset the result to Lap X, it opens a very complicate precedent. 

[Timorous]

But different conditions can produce different outcomes, you just don't know (e.g. see the 'brake magic' moment at Baku). Whilst in this case it might be valid to reset the result to Lap X, it opens a very complicate precedent. 

 

It is not complicated at all. If the RD breached the regs the race ends at that moment and points are awarded based on how much of the full race distance has been completed as they would be for a race shortened for other reasons.

 

In the AD case that would simply mean the race ends on L57 which given that is almost the entire race means full points are awarded (although given they were even on points that wouldn't even matter).

[FortiFord]

But different conditions can produce different outcomes, you just don't know (e.g. see the 'brake magic' moment at Baku). Whilst in this case it might be valid to reset the result to Lap X, it opens a very complicate precedent. 

 

You should read 66 - it states that they are not bound by precedents. They make these decisions based on 1.1.1. - the principle of sporting fairness. 

 

So whilst AD21 may have resulted in reverting to the order at the end of lap 57, an incorrect SC procedure in the middle of the season, in the middle of the race may not have the same outcome. It depends what the court thinks is fair. 

Edited by FortiFord, 07 February 2024 - 17:05.

[ensign14]

The fairest thing, if there is a major breach of sporting regulations that materially affect a race result, is to annul the race. Because any corrective action is also seen as unfair interference - who's to say that Hamiltion, in this case ,wouldn't have had a puncture/engine failure/gearbox problem/mistake etc. on the final lap? Very unlikely, but not without precedent.

But then that ISN'T fair. Because it means the FIA takes away something a team/driver has earned because of the FIA's failing. It's just as bad as throwing the rule book out.

That was not going to be an option in Abu Dhabi either because the FIA would have had to annul the entire championship. A race would have been annulled through reasons THAT WERE NOT FORCE MAJEURE

[New Britain]

The fairest thing, if there is a major breach of sporting regulations that materially affect a race result, is to annul the race. Because any corrective action is also seen as unfair interference - who's to say that Hamiltion, in this case ,wouldn't have had a puncture/engine failure/gearbox problem/mistake etc. on the final lap? Very unlikely, but not without precedent.  

But no different from the likelihood that Verstappen might have had a puncture/etc., and therefore the two theoretical possibilities in a sense cancel each other out.

 

Annulling a race strikes me as a more extreme act than the stewards' changing the results. People make countless qualitative judgments every day, and I daresay most of the time most of us would agree that those judgments are, on the balance of probabilities, correct if not perfect. When it is entirely obvious that the officials have made an error, and there is a high (albeit not certain) likelihood of what the result would have been without their error, I don't know why the better course would not be to change the result to what probably would have happened.

[PayasYouRace]

I’m split between lost his marbles under pressure or given vague direction from above to keep it interesting till the last minute - which seemed to be the MO in the second half of the year.

 

I also find it hard to determine his motive given that Hamilton was allowed to stay in the lead after cutting the track early on.

[ensign14]

I also find it hard to determine his motive given that Hamilton was allowed to stay in the lead after cutting the track early on.

Even assuming he was not shoved off by Verstappen, that's the sort of mistake of fact that cannot really be appealed, rather than a mistake of law which potentially annuls the entire event.

[PayasYouRace]

Even assuming he was not shoved off by Verstappen, that's the sort of mistake of fact that cannot really be appealed, rather than a mistake of law which potentially annuls the entire event.

 

I only mention it to show there didn't seem to be overt bias towards either competitor, but rather a general incompetence and possibly desire to see a green flag finish at any cost.

[FortiFord]

I also find it hard to determine his motive given that Hamilton was allowed to stay in the lead after cutting the track early on.

 

He left the decision to the stewards. 

 

Granted, he could have told Hamilton to give up the place immediately after, but i guess he wanted to let someone else make that decision. 

 

I don't think his motivation was biasedness to one driver though. It seems fairly clear that the motivation was to put on a show. Whether that motivation came from him or from someone else within F1 or the FIA is not clear however. 

[Myrvold]

I also find it hard to determine his motive given that Hamilton was allowed to stay in the lead after cutting the track early on.

 
Well. That has nothing to do with the Race Director though...
 

He left the decision to the stewards.

Which sounds idiotic. There is a reason why teams/drivers that listened to Whiting still could get penalized. A Race Director does not have a say in anything related to penalties and such. That is solely the stewards. An RD can refer situations to the stewards, or can decide not to. Just like many others that are in contact with the stewards. If an RD doesn't refer it to the stewards, it doesn't mean others don't, or they don't see it themselves. However, an RD can't decide anything in regards to penalties. It is solely the operation of the race and weekend that the RD dictates.

Edited by Myrvold, 08 February 2024 - 00:23.

[Gareth]

I don’t think that’s right wrt deciding whether an advantage could/should be returned? Think that was specifically in the regs at the time as something within the RD’s powers?

[Broekschaap]

It still is. In article 33.3:

 

At the absolute discretion of the Race Director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage he
gained by leaving the track.

 

I have no idea why they felt the need to leave it in there, And it does not say what the guaranteed advantages are if the driver listens.  But it is a discretion, so the RD can do whatever pleases him. Which kinda nicely fits into the vibe of the topic.

[Gareth]

Thanks! I thought it had been removed because they decided a season or two ago not to use it any more, but I guess they only decided not to use it (not to get rid of it)

I guess given the wording it also doesn’t address the original point, as I had thought. Masi could only give Lewis an opportunity to avoid a penalty, whether he did that or not, it was still down to the Stewards (not Masi) to decide if there was a penalty or not.

So in answer to the argument of ‘if Masi was partial towards Max or Red Bull, why did he not take the (easier) opportunity of expressing that partiality by penalising Hamilton’s earlier off track excursion?’ I guess is ‘because he couldn’t - that power rested with the stewards only’.

[TheFish]

For me, this doesn't change anything. The situation was crystal clear at the time, and it's still crystal clear now. The FIA has acknowledged fault, and Mercedes decided to give up its right to pursue the matter further. I don't think there's any more to be said.

I agree with this. Baffles me still how easily Merc gave up on that title. You can be certain if Max was screwed out of it by incompetence or malice of the race director, they wouldn’t have gone so quietly.

[Timorous]

I agree with this. Baffles me still how easily Merc gave up on that title. You can be certain if Max was screwed out of it by incompetence or malice of the race director, they wouldn’t have gone so quietly.

 

RB would have taken it all the way and threatened to quit the sport with both teams if roles were reversed I think.

[Myrvold]

I don’t think that’s right wrt deciding whether an advantage could/should be returned? Think that was specifically in the regs at the time as something within the RD’s powers?

 

Yet, if the race director decides not to advise the driver/team on anything, that doesn't mean it cannot be penalize by the stewards. It's just not a thing that a Race Director is supposed to be doing.

There is a little clause in the sporting code regarding this.

If it is necessary for his duties and responsibilities to differ from the above, these duties will be set out in the relevant sporting regulations.

However, I will argue that the F1 Sporting Regulations 33.3, doesn't really give any duty to the Race Director, rather than some sort of advice. As a non-action from the RD doesn't mean it's all clear. It's not the RD's duty to monitor if drivers have gained an advantage by leving the track or not.

[New Britain]

I agree with this. Baffles me still how easily Merc gave up on that title. You can be certain if Max was screwed out of it by incompetence or malice of the race director, they wouldn’t have gone so quietly.

Merc decided not to appeal because the only venue for appeal was the FIA's own ICA, and their ruling almost certainly would have taken one of two forms:

- to continue the FIA cover-up started by the Abu Dhabi stewards, pretending that Masi's actions, although unusual, were allowed, or

- to annul the entire race, which would have handed the title to Verstappen anyhow (and then only because of the insane decision to award points at the Belgium GP race that never was).

It was extremely unlikely that the ICA would order that the race results be changed, and therefore for Mercedes to appeal would have been an exercise in futility.

[pdac]

Merc decided not to appeal because the only venue for appeal was the FIA's own ICA, and their ruling almost certainly would have taken one of two forms:

- to continue the FIA cover-up started by the Abu Dhabi stewards, pretending that Masi's actions, although unusual, were allowed, or

- to annul the entire race, which would have handed the title to Verstappen anyhow (and then only because of the insane decision to award points at the Belgium GP race that never was).

It was extremely unlikely that the ICA would order that the race results be changed, and therefore for Mercedes to appeal would have been an exercise in futility.

 

Yes, but they chose not to find out, didn't they. Anything that's "almost certain" is not certain until it's tested.

[New Britain]

Yes, but they chose not to find out, didn't they. Anything that's "almost certain" is not certain until it's tested.

Sure, but the decision to appeal to the ICA would not be cost-free. The money would not have mattered, but the institutional time required and the emotional engagement created would have been major distractions.

At the time it felt (at least to me) that Merc believed that Hamilton was driving so brilliantly and Merc engineers had made such progress in developing their 2021 car that they could come back in '22 and beat Verstappen and Red Bull (I won't say 'fair and square', as they had just beat them fair and square in '21) without controversy. 

Merc reckoned that 2021 would not be their last bite at the cherry. They may however have got that wrong.

[ensign14]

Merc decided not to appeal because the only venue for appeal was the FIA's own ICA, and their ruling almost certainly would have taken one of two forms:

- to continue the FIA cover-up started by the Abu Dhabi stewards, pretending that Masi's actions, although unusual, were allowed, or

- to annul the entire race, which would have handed the title to Verstappen anyhow (and then only because of the insane decision to award points at the Belgium GP race that never was).

It was extremely unlikely that the ICA would order that the race results be changed, and therefore for Mercedes to appeal would have been an exercise in futility.

But that would have opened up a court challenge on the basis that the ICA had misdirected itself.

 

My guess is Merc did not appeal because they didn't trust the FIA not to give the next Merc a zero star NCAP rating.

[pdac]

Sure, but the decision to appeal to the ICA would not be cost-free. The money would not have mattered, but the institutional time required and the emotional engagement created would have been major distractions.

At the time it felt (at least to me) that Merc believed that Hamilton was driving so brilliantly and Merc engineers had made such progress in developing their 2021 car that they could come back in '22 and beat Verstappen and Red Bull (I won't say 'fair and square', as they had just beat them fair and square in '21) without controversy. 

Merc reckoned that 2021 would not be their last bite at the cherry. They may however have got that wrong.

 

It would have been a major distraction for all and would have opened up the whole system to more scrutiny by the press. I'm sure, regardless of the outcome, more heads would have rolled than have so far.

[flyboym3]

For me, this doesn't change anything. The situation was crystal clear at the time, and it's still crystal clear now. The FIA has acknowledged fault, and Mercedes decided to give up its right to pursue the matter further. I don't think there's any more to be said.

This.
But its nice to see this confirmation in practice for those on this forum who really didn't understand how to read the rule book. They now have confirmation of how 2021 should have ended according to the rule book based on this decision today.

Poor Lewis, because while heads did roll for that mistake, he himself never got justice and that just doesn't sit right with me still.

Edited by flyboym3, 09 February 2024 - 00:29.