Poll: Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 2021, Yas Island - Race 22

[Jono8]

Yes it was unfair.
The whole SC process where cars get bunched up, losing any lead they built up is unfair.

But that it isn't inherently unfair on one or a select number of competitors (and its only because the rest of the field is so ****, that Max got the opportunity to repeatedly change tyres without losing position anyway - but that isnt Masi's problem). Letting some unlap and others not, is cleary and objectively a total manipulation of the end result as you give a massive advantage to some cars and not others for no good reason.

Everything Masi did, completely threw Mercedes strategy call in the bin, because Mercedes were following the rules, and not what Masi was going to make up in his head on the last lap.

You simply cannot run a sport where the referee just arbitrarily decides to change how things fundamentally work like that.

There must be better ways, BUT you can't go back and change the result now!

Why? The result was a manipulation and absolutely should be changed. The procedure and decision was incredibly simple and Masi had two options within the rules that would have been been fair. He chose neither and imagined one up, that was objectively ridiculous.

I think its far more harmful to F1's reputation to leave it as it is.

 

[Kanpai]

This has been covered at least 10 times already in this thread.
There can't be a discrete rule for every single scenario, but.....

Rule 15.3
The RD has overriding authority of the following matters....
e: The use of the safety car.

So what you described in my quote falls under this rule. Rightly or wrongly the decision was made within the rules.

15.3 overides 48.13

48.13 overides 48.12

The rules are a mess and need reviewing & updating.

Agreed, he followed the book but as you’ve stated there are way too many loopholes which lead to too many interpretations of such rules.

 

[englishpremier]

Away from the result; Channel 4 averaged 3.4 million viewers on Sunday; peaking at 4.375 million at one point; I wonder how that compared to the figures watching Sky....

Probably around 2m. I remember ITV being particularly happy Brazil 2008 got 9m.

Well, yeah...

With the FIA it goes to the FIA's own International Court of Appeal... Always has done.

No idea where everyone got CAS from?

Which isn't a court of law and has been known to make dodgy rulings that then get over turned in real courts.

 

[Mr Jack]

Rule 15.3
The RD has overriding authority of the following matters....
e: The use of the safety car.

This is section 15 is full:

15) OFFICIALS

15.1 From among holders of an FIA Super Licence the following officials will be nominated by the FIA:
a) Three stewards one of whom will be appointed chairman.
b) A Race Director.
c) A Permanent Starter.

15.2 From among holders of an FIA Super Licence the following officials will be nominated by the ASN
and their names sent to the FIA at the same time as the application to organise the Event:
a) One steward from among the ASNs nationals.
b) The clerk of the course.

15.3 The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race
Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may
give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement:
a) The control of practice, sprint qualifying session and the race, adherence to the timetable
and, if he deems it necessary, the making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the
timetable in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
b) The stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations.
c) The stopping of practice, suspension of a sprint qualifying session or suspension of the
race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he deems it unsafe to continue and
ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out.
d) The starting procedure.
e) The use of the safety car.

15.4 The stewards, the Race Director, the clerk of the course and the Technical Delegate must be
present at the start of the Event.

15.5 In exceptional circumstances, should any stewards not be present at the start of the Event, they
must be available and contactable at all times to fulfil their duties.

15.6 The Race Director must be in radio contact with the clerk of the course and the chairman of the
stewards at all times when cars are permitted to run on the track. Additionally, the clerk of the
course must be in race control and in radio contact with all marshal's posts during these times.

15.7 The stewards may use any video or electronic means to assist them in reaching a decision. The
stewards may overrule judges of fact.​

15.3 isn't giving the Race Director ultimate power it's setting out what the role of the Clerk of the Course is and where the limits of their role lie. It's frankly perverse to treat it as allowing the Race Director to override the rules set out elsewhere and it frankly says nothing good about Masi that he put forward such an argument or the stewards that they accepted them - although, to be fair, aren't really there to engage with this kind of legal shenanigans. I can't believe any court would give this interpretation the time of day although - of course - I am not a lawyer.

Even then, even if this rule does grant him the power, it was still wrong of him to use that power to deviate from the written rules and all established precedent. Legal does not mean justifiable.

 

[Jono8]

This has been covered at least 10 times already in this thread.
There can't be a discrete rule for every single scenario, but.....

Rule 15.3
The RD has overriding authority of the following matters....
e: The use of the safety car.

So what you described in my quote falls under this rule. Rightly or wrongly the decision was made within the rules.

15.3 overides 48.13

48.13 overides 48.12

The rules are a mess and need reviewing & updating.

I just want to add to this, that "authority" in the context of this regulation implies authority over other people (the clerk in this case). It doesn't mean he has overriding authority to override the rules, just authority over anyone else involved in that matter (the safety car deployment).

A clause stating that the race director has overriding authority over the rest of the regulations is clearly absurd and no such clause would exist, otherwise the actual regulations are moot.

Section 15 is about officials, and 15.3 is quite clearly talking about his authority over the clerk of the course, not the actual regulations (as that would quite clearly be stupid).

 

[Cryfreeman]

Does having Authority over the use of the safety car mean being selective on which cars unlap though ? That’s a long stretch.

 

[Jono8]

Does having Authority over the use of the safety car mean being selective on which cars unlap though ? That’s a long stretch.

Absolutely not, because it gives the race director the ability to decide who wins/loses (which is what happened).

This is why there is no such regulation/option to do this under the safety car, because it would obviously be unfair.

 

[SDK^]

I think its far more harmful to F1's reputation to leave it as it is.

.....and changing the result in a courtroom is going to improve the F1 reputation?

 

[Jono8]

.....and changing the result in a courtroom is going to improve the F1 reputation?

Yes.

 

[Greboth]

This has been covered at least 10 times already in this thread.
There can't be a discrete rule for every single scenario, but.....

Rule 15.3
The RD has overriding authority of the following matters....
e: The use of the safety car.

So what you described in my quote falls under this rule. Rightly or wrongly the decision was made within the rules.

15.3 overides 48.13

48.13 overides 48.12

The rules are a mess and need reviewing & updating.

The FIA are hiding behind it but that doesn't fly, you can't enact half of a rule. The same way it's a farce only some cars could over take when it should be all (yes the rule says "any" not "all" but in the context 'any' does mean all.)

The full article says

15.3 The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement:

So the clerk shall work in consultation with the RD - that's one sentence, stand alone everyone is happy with that.

The problem comes for the FIA that the articles adds "..and the the clerk of the course may give orders in respect to them only with his express agreement". I've sat through enough boring Court of Appeals and ECHR to know the argument is always that as one sentence the "and" links the first part to the second.

For exact clarity, the definition of "and": used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly.

If the Race director having overriding authority was not linked to what the Clerk can do then they should have been separate sentences.

Put it another way, the sentence should still make sense with the parts reversed but "The Clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his (race directors) express agreement and the race director shall have overriding authority in the following matters". Working it that way becomes blatantly obvious the section is setting out what the Clerk can do and that the Race Director has overriding authority over the Clerk, not of all the rules pertaining to the SC.

 

[Kanpai]

Yes.

No way in hell would Lewis want to have his 8th WDC in those circumstances.

 

[Jono8]

No way in hell would Lewis want to have his 8th WDC in those circumstances.

It isn't all about Lewis. It's about ensuring that manipulation of the race by the race director does not happen. It isn't a sport otherwise.

 

[bayo000]

I see this a lot. Netflix have very little to do with the top teams though, I'm not sure Max or Lewis have ever been on in any major way? They tend to follow the middle and lower teams. I think it was done just to make a dramatic finish to try and publicise the sport generally. A little WWE like, as has been mentioned.

If it was done for commercial reasons, which is pretty much given, then it's more likely the pressure came from the Abu Dhabi track owners. Didn't they pay crazy money to make sure they've got the last race? They would have wanted a spectacle and race finish rather than a safety car finish, doubt they would be happy with a safety car setting off the fireworks.

 

[AndyCr15]

If it was done for commercial reasons, which is pretty much given

Yes, that's what I'm saying. If the Netflix show didn't exist, this would have still happened. The two are unrelated.

 

[Steampunk]

.....and changing the result in a courtroom is going to improve the F1 reputation?

The debacle has already happened. At least correcting the result (instead of leaving it to stand) goes some way to restoring the tarnished reputation of F1.

 

[jonneymendoza]

.....and changing the result in a courtroom is going to improve the F1 reputation?

Its not about changing the result even though it is the right decision.

Its about punishing the FIA so this crap never happens again

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Does 48.13 actually overide 48.12?

Article 48.12 details the procedure for such a situation that has been determined to be safe.
Article 48.13 states that the RD can bring the car in when it is deemed safe to do so.

Surely for Article 48.13 to override Article 48.12, the RD should be able to justify why he deviated from the established procedure of Article 48.12. That is what would happen in the real world.

 

[Jono8]

The RD has overriding authority over the use of the safety car. As far as i am concerned, that means what he says goes as far as safety car deployment goes. I reckon it would stand legally too. If they don't want it to be that way, they will have to change the wording of the rule. I agree it does not mean he can change the rule regarding lapped cars though.

No. He has overriding authority over other people in safety car decisions. He doesn't have overriding authority over the actual regulations (ie he can't just do what he did and make up fantasy rules off the top of his head, most certainly not ones that unfairly advantage/disadvantage some drivers).

 

[Mesai]

The RD has overriding authority over the use of the safety car. As far as i am concerned, that means what he says goes as far as safety car deployment goes. I reckon it would stand legally too. If they don't want it to be that way, they will have to change the wording of the rule. I agree it does not mean he can change the rule regarding lapped cars though.

And probably too his benefit, nothing unsafe happened so there are no real grounds for breach of safety.

 

[Jono8]

Does 48.13 actually overide 48.12?

Article 48.12 details the procedure for such a situation that has been determined to be safe.
Article 48.13 states that the RD can bring the car in when it is deemed safe to do so.

Surely for Article 48.13 to override Article 48.12, the RD should be able to justify why he deviated from the established procedure of Article 48.12. That is what would happen in the real world.

He can't because the only justification is that he intentionally manipulated a 1 lap playoff between Max and Lewis, at the detriment to many other drivers in the field.