727 replies to this topic

[New Britain]

Max, Lando, Carlos, Charles. Only Lando didn't lift

https://www.planetf1...flag-deployment

 

Computer isn't loading images, so I can't confirm/double check. But my recollection of the telemetry trace is that he's come down the whole straight at a much slower speed - very possible he saw the panels early on (considering they would have been on for him, rather than came on when driving past like Lando) and didn't apply as much from the get go, negating the need to brake/lift.

HTH.

[PrinceBira]

The post had nothing to do with whether either penalty was justified. The point was that giving a driver a rare one-place grid penalty was an example of how, contrary to conventional wisdom, the stewards have a great deal of discretion in the size of penalty to impose.

 

That's incorrect again.

 

There is no minimum penalty for that particular offense. That is why the Stewards have the leeway to only hand out a slap on the wrists rather than an actually penalty. They do this if they think there is mitigation. In Verstappen's case their argument was that they didn't see any mitigation (which I disagree as discussed for pages). My issue with the Verstappen penalty was that it was not in line with all previous 60 incidents. The issue there has not been that they didn't follow the rule book. 

 

This is what they call a false analogy.

[New Britain]

That's incorrect again.

 

There is no minimum penalty for that particular offense. That is why the Stewards have the leeway to only hand out a slap on the wrists rather than an actually penalty. They do this if they think there is mitigation. In Verstappen's case their argument was that they didn't see any mitigation (which I disagree as discussed for pages). My issue with the Verstappen penalty was that it was not in line with all previous 60 incidents. The issue there has not been that they didn't follow the rule book. 

 

This is what they call a false analogy.

That was precisely the point - there is no minimum penalty. It is up to the stewards.

[PrinceBira]

That was precisely the point - there is no minimum penalty. It is up to the stewards.

 

Yes, the rules allow that decision freedom for the Stewards.

 

Whereas the rules for the Norris infringement do not allow that decision freedom. 

[New Britain]

Yes, the rules allow that decision freedom for the Stewards.

 

Whereas the rules for the Norris infringement do not allow that decision freedom. 

 

Could you please quote the official document stating that, in the case of double yellows, the stewards' 'supreme authority' to govern the race and right to 'amend the classifications' do not exist?

 

Thanks.

[Myrvold]

That was precisely the point - there is no minimum penalty. It is up to the stewards.

 

And the way to do it when it comes to adhering to flag rules due to safety is to be strict, and follow precedence. Stella did try a little "proportions" argument after the race, other than that, it's been quite silent about the penalty, and there's good reasons for it, and that's not only because there is a duel between a bully and a backstabber or something.

 

 

Yes, the rules allow that decision freedom for the Stewards.

 

Whereas the rules for the Norris infringement do not allow that decision freedom. 

 

I would second New Britains request regarding this.

[PrinceBira]

Could you please quote the official document stating that, in the case of double yellows, the stewards' 'supreme authority' to govern the race and right to 'amend the classifications' do not exist?

 

Thanks.

 

Yes, the Stewards can also decide to change the race classification on Sunday reversing the end-result. 

 

Do you agree on that?

[baddog]

Could you please quote the official document stating that, in the case of double yellows, the stewards' 'supreme authority' to govern the race and right to 'amend the classifications' do not exist?

 

Thanks.

 

The FIA stated that they applied "the penalty guidelines circulated to the teams on 19 February 2024."

 

I don't have a copy but if you are accusing them of not applying them correctly, perhaps you have access to more information to back that up?

Edited by baddog, 06 December 2024 - 09:26.

[AlcidioG]

Could you please quote the official document stating that, in the case of double yellows, the stewards' 'supreme authority' to govern the race and right to 'amend the classifications' do not exist?

 

Thanks.

 

Jezus ****ing Christ... still this?

 

Lando made a mistake and that mistake was dealt with in the same way it has always been handled. No more, no less.

I hope they keep being this consistent. No matter who, what, where, not even if it were to cost somebody or some team a WDC or WCC.

We ask for consistency and when we get it some still cry about it.

[New Britain]

Yes, the Stewards can also decide to change the race classification on Sunday reversing the end-result. 

 

Do you agree on that?

Seeing as how it was part of what I wrote in the post that you quote, yes, I do agree with myself. 

[New Britain]

The FIA stated that they applied "the penalty guidelines circulated to the teams on 19 February 2024."

 

I don't have a copy but if you are accusing them of not applying them correctly, perhaps you have access to more information to back that up?

The key word being 'guidelines'. 

[baddog]

The key word being 'guidelines'. 

 

Right.

 

He got the penalty he earned, he took his knock and accepts it, his fans should do likewise.

[PrinceBira]

Seeing as how it was part of what I wrote in the post that you quote, yes, I do agree with myself. 

 

Well then we agree, the Stewards have infinite power and they can do whatever pleases them.

 

In theory, they could even let Ocon win Abu Dhabi. Wouldn't that be fantastic? 

[NCB619]

Could you please quote the official document stating that, in the case of double yellows, the stewards' 'supreme authority' to govern the race and right to 'amend the classifications' do not exist?

 

Thanks.

Strictly speaking, they don't have the right to 'amend the classifications', no.

 

Article 54.3 of the Sporting Regulations states that "If any of the seven penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal." This is all penalties up to disqualification. So, yes - in the case of double yellows, as it's become extremely clear they've penalised this correctly, the right to 'amend the classifications' doesn't exist.

[New Britain]

Strictly speaking, they don't have the right to 'amend the classifications', no.

 

Article 54.3 of the Sporting Regulations states that "If any of the seven penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal." This is all penalties up to disqualification. So, yes - in the case of double yellows, as it's become extremely clear they've penalised this correctly, the right to 'amend the classifications' doesn't exist.

Not trying to be patronising, but you're misinterpreting the concept of 'appeal'. When they say 'shall not be subject to appeal', they are referring to appeals by the entrants. Stewards do not appeal rulings, because that would mean appealing their own rulings, which obvs would be nonsensical. 

[Myrvold]

Strictly speaking, they don't have the right to 'amend the classifications', no.

 

Article 54.3 of the Sporting Regulations states that "If any of the seven penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal." This is all penalties up to disqualification. So, yes - in the case of double yellows, as it's become extremely clear they've penalised this correctly, the right to 'amend the classifications' doesn't exist.

 

Strictly speaking they do have the right to amend the classifications.

 

 

From the International Sporting Code under article 11 - Officials and 11.9 Authority of the Stewards

11.9.3.j may amend the classifications;

Edited by Myrvold, 06 December 2024 - 14:21.

[NCB619]

Strictly speaking they do have the right to amend the classifications.

 

 

From the International Sporting Code under article 11 - Officials and 11.9 Authority of the Stewards

Touché - but..

 

Not trying to be patronising, but you're misinterpreting the concept of 'appeal'. When they say 'shall not be subject to appeal', they are referring to appeals by the entrants. Stewards do not appeal rulings, because that would mean appealing their own rulings, which obvs would be nonsensical. 

Leads me to this great point. Which is a double touché.

 

Why should it matter that the stewards are able to amend the classifications based off this? In all my years, the only time I can ever recall any classifications amended (so.. this obviously wouldn't include straight up exclusions and disqualifications), is Brazil 2003

[New Britain]

Touché - but..

 

Leads me to this great point. Which is a double touché.

 

Why should it matter that the stewards are able to amend the classifications based off this? In all my years, the only time I can ever recall any classifications amended (so.. this obviously wouldn't include straight up exclusions and disqualifications), is Brazil 2003

The point of citing the 'amend the classifications' and 'supreme authority' clauses of the ISC was to demonstrate that the stewards have wide discretionary powers to do what they think right.

As I understand it, before the start of every season the FIA composes and gives to the teams 'guidelines' for how the drivers should conduct themselves and (it seems) the penalty or penalty range to be expected for each kind of offence. The guidelines may be modified mid-season, as the FIA were going to do (but didn't do) before Qatar regarding one of Verstappen's techniques.

If an entrant objects to a stewards' ruling, in some cases it may appeal to the FIA's International Court of Appeal (but, as you noted above, not in all cases). I couldn't tell you when was the last time that the ICA overturned a stewards' verdict (you may recall that three years ago, after AD21, Mercedes seriously considered appealing the stewards' manifestly incorrect ruling that had enormous consequences, but even then decided against it).

 

Last Sunday, when former F1 drivers and other pundits changed their initial reactions from 'surely that penalty is too harsh' to 'Oh, I just remembered that the stewards had no choice - that is the minimum penalty', they were incorrect. They might have said that 'it is the minimum penalty in the guidelines, which are not mandatory', or that 'it is the usual penalty', but it was not the mandatory minimum penalty, just as putting Verstappen back one grid spot for 'driving too slowly' was not the mandatory minimum penalty during quali.

Edited by New Britain, 06 December 2024 - 18:27.

[baddog]

Even if we accept your idea that in extraordinary circumstances stewards might overrule a penalty or result due to some dramatic force majeure or manifest unfairness, or new information.. we are still left with the fact that you thinking its a bit harsh hardly represents such a situation.

 

If you are arguing over technicalities just for the sake of being right then go for it.. but surely you don't think this extraordinary power you give the stewards to do as they please should be used to adjust every routine penalty? Surely they would be deciding to give 4 seconds for one overtaking off track and 6 for another. Might need another 10 stewards and a lot of coffee there..

[New Britain]

Even if we accept your idea that in extraordinary circumstances stewards might overrule a penalty or result due to some dramatic force majeure or manifest unfairness, or new information.. we are still left with the fact that you thinking its a bit harsh hardly represents such a situation.

 

If you are arguing over technicalities just for the sake of being right then go for it.. but surely you don't think this extraordinary power you give the stewards to do as they please should be used to adjust every routine penalty? Surely they would be deciding to give 4 seconds for one overtaking off track and 6 for another. Might need another 10 stewards and a lot of coffee there..

 

'That seems unbelievably extreme',

 

said Jenson Button, who knows a lot more about racing an F1 car than I, and I suspect you, do.

[NCB619]

The point of citing the 'amend the classifications' and 'supreme authority' clauses of the ISC was to demonstrate that the stewards have wide discretionary powers to do what they think right.

As I understand it, before the start of every season the FIA composes and gives to the teams 'guidelines' for how the drivers should conduct themselves and (it seems) the penalty or penalty range to be expected for each kind of offence. The guidelines may be modified mid-season, as the FIA were going to do (but didn't do) before Qatar regarding one of Verstappen's techniques.

If an entrant objects to a stewards' ruling, in some cases it may appeal to the FIA's International Court of Appeal (but, as you noted above, not in all cases). I couldn't tell you when was the last time that the ICA overturned a stewards' verdict (you may recall that three years ago, after AD21, Mercedes seriously considered appealing the stewards' manifestly incorrect ruling that had enormous consequences, but even then decided against it).

 

Last Sunday, when former F1 drivers and other pundits changed their initial reactions from 'surely that penalty is too harsh' to 'Oh, I just remembered that the stewards had no choice - that is the minimum penalty', they were incorrect. They might have said that 'it is the minimum penalty in the guidelines, which are not mandatory', or that 'it is the usual penalty', but it was not the mandatory minimum penalty, just as putting Verstappen back one grid spot for 'driving too slowly' was not the mandatory minimum penalty during quali.

It's almost as if they meant the bold part while saying the italicised parts.... who'd a thunk that??

[baddog]

'That seems unbelievably extreme',

 

said Jenson Button, who knows a lot more about racing an F1 car than I, and I suspect you, do.

 

“The rules are the rules,” Button said. “They’re kind of stuck with ‘there’s a double yellow, we have to give him that penalty’.

 

“It sounds unbelievably harsh, compared to a car being upside down in the middle of the track, which is dangerous because there’s marshals on the track with a double-waved yellow, and there could be a driver stuck in the car. A wing mirror sitting in the middle of the track [is] very different, and that’s where the rule is the issue. It’s a set rule that needs possibly looking at for the future.”

 

He accepts this is a correct and normal penalty. He would like the penalty rules to be changed. He doesn't suggest there is some huge extenuating circumstance or that they should have overridden the rules.

 

I personally don't agree with him AT ALL that there should be some additional nuance, a waved yellow should mean slow down, always for everyone. 

[New Britain]

 

“The rules are the rules,” Button said. “They’re kind of stuck with ‘there’s a double yellow, we have to give him that penalty’.

 

“It sounds unbelievably harsh, compared to a car being upside down in the middle of the track, which is dangerous because there’s marshals on the track with a double-waved yellow, and there could be a driver stuck in the car. A wing mirror sitting in the middle of the track [is] very different, and that’s where the rule is the issue. It’s a set rule that needs possibly looking at for the future.”

 

He accepts this is a correct and normal penalty. He would like the penalty rules to be changed. He doesn't suggest there is some huge extenuating circumstance or that they should have overridden the rules.

 

I personally don't agree with him AT ALL that there should be some additional nuance, a waved yellow should mean slow down, always for everyone. 

 

As I have said many times in this thread, it is obvious from Button's (and others') comments that he mistakenly believed that the stewards had no choice.

You think that the stewards should not be able to apply their judgment, whereas I do.

[PrinceBira]

As I have said many times in this thread, it is obvious from Button's (and others') comments that he mistakenly believed that the stewards had no choice.
You think that the stewards should not be able to apply their judgment, whereas I do.

Well your point is any rule in the rule book can be subjectively overwritten by the Stewards if they like so.

Did you think where that leaves F1 as a sport? Why not throw away the rule book altogether?

Because how can we then decide if they do it correctly?

It’s an authority that only should be used in the most extreme of circumstances and not likely. Especially not for a standard penalty and moreso for a penalty that always has been 10s s/g in the past.

Edited by PrinceBira, 07 December 2024 - 07:40.

[baddog]

As I have said many times in this thread, it is obvious from Button's (and others') comments that he mistakenly believed that the stewards had no choice.

You think that the stewards should not be able to apply their judgment, whereas I do.

 

It is possible you are right that they CAN override the prescribed penalties in exceptional circumstances.

 

One driver being half asleep and not seeing flags is not an exceptional circumstance. No way.

[pup]

There are no prescribed penalties. And it was the race director who was half asleep, possibly entirely asleep until Red Bull rang him up.

[kumo7]

The incidents has relevant implication to the safety on the track. letting it ho might results in a scary incidents involving marshals, hence exposing 2 billion dollar trams operating the race with marshals with zero renumeration.

checking up only about if the drivers lifted is not what we should be discussing.

Do we still need double yellow for current F1 races, or dash, radio and VSC sufficient to control tye situation, even better than this double yellow that allows drivers to pass ny the scene of incident as fast as 260 kph?

[Myrvold]

There are no prescribed penalties. And it was the race director who was half asleep, possibly entirely asleep until Red Bull rang him up.

The RD?