Poll: Official 2024 United States Grand Prix Race Thread - Circuit of the Americas - Race 19/24

[Jono8]

This says it all for me:

Look at the difference in angle/trajectory between George's and Max' incident at the same corner.

It's quite clear that Max made no attempt at taking the corner whilst staying on track, and was only ahead at the apex because of that.

 

[Scam]

Personally, I think if you out brake yourself with no clear attempt to make the corner on track, then it's tough if you get overtaken off the track.

Anyone with a bit of common sense can see that. It's like how referees in football play advantage when there's been a foul. Use a modicum of common sense for the overall benefit of the sport.

This is why I'm intrigued by the RB fans defence of this.. For sure there's twisted way you can argue the rules say "you cannot overtake off the track" but this is so blindingly obviously not the point for this incident I begin to wonder if they even like F1 or just like to see their golden boy get given trophies on a platter...

 

[iamtheoneneo]

Please don't compare Max to George

George is as soft as cheese..he's not a good driver.

 

[Kenai]

This is why I'm intrigued by the RB fans defence of this..

We need to separate the concept of arguing from the standpoint of what the rules actually are, what they say and why that means that the punishments dished out were the only ones that logically could have been from the idea that people necessarily agree that the rules are right or that the behaviour is defensible.

I think the rules could be better drafted to prevent this behaviour, as I dislike it immensely, but as the rules are only one driver involved opened themselves up to a potential penalty.

I agree with this principle:

Personally, I think if you out brake yourself with no clear attempt to make the corner on track, then it's tough if you get overtaken off the track.

But this is unfortunately not the active principle/guideline/rules/whatever actually in force right now, so it's pointless arguing that Norris should have been let off or Max should have penalised on the basis that that's what we think the rules should be. The guidelines say the defending car must still be able to make the corner but give no further clarity on what it should mean if/when they don't do that.

Edit - The problem with the principle of "if the inside car forces both off the track, then all's fair in love and war, whoever gets back on track first is golden", it will be seen as a tacit approval that racing can continue outside of track limits and rather than the behaviour stopping, it'll just normalise everyone using massive run off areas as extended racing area which the governing bodies can't sanction in good conscience.

At least the stewards are aiming to stick to the rules as they're written - I think we were all much less enamoured with the last time the rule book was thrown into the bin for what one persons interpretation of 'for the overall benefit of the sport' meant

I'd like to see the guidelines updated to stop this behaviour as much as anyone else but I don't think we should be calling for the stewards to make their own interpretations outside of the rules until that time, as that will only end in more inconsistency and controversy one way or another.

Edit 2 - personally, I think the best 'solution' at this point would be for the guidelines to be updated to clarify if the defending car pushes the other car off the track, providing the overtaking car elects to safely rejoin the track behind, then the defending car will get a 10s penalty. Suddenly it's just not worth the risk of sending it like Max does.

 

[Mesai]

I disagree, and question who was actually the defender or attacker, just like Martin Brundle.

ultimately, no penalty should have been given to either driver.

Let's just ignore the fact that most of the media agree with the ruling but acknowledge that something needs to change to prevent it from happening that way. And let's ignore that just being in front doesn't mean you've overtaken - there are conditions for what qualifies a completed overtake, which Norris hadn't achieved.

If Max became the attacker, then he had his car ahead at the apex and had priority for the corner. In all cases, Norris should have backed off.

 

[Jono8]

Let's just ignore the fact that most of the media agree with the ruling but acknowledge that something needs to change to prevent it from happening that way. And let's ignore that just being in front doesn't mean you've overtaken - there are conditions for what qualifies a completed overtake, which Norris hadn't achieved.

If Max became the attacker, then he had his car ahead at the apex and had priority for the corner. In all cases, Norris should have backed off.

Can you give me the rules/guidelines on what constitutes a successful overtake or how you decide which car is ahead at the start of the corner?

 

[Slam62]

Much as I dislike Max getting the advantage out of this, pragmatically Norris is not very street savvy he should have just dropped behind and had another go.
If that had happened there’s a good chance Max would have got a penalty for forcing another driver off track.

Why not just disallow all overtaking off track and be done with it.

 

[sidimmu]

Why not just disallow all overtaking off track and be done with it.

Because FIA needs something to moderate so badly that it sends everyone into a fit.
More fan fits = more drama = more views = more money.

Its hilarious though, Golden boy this, golden platter that, the shoe changes every few years.

 

[Jono8]

But this is unfortunately not the active principle/guideline/rules/whatever actually in force right now, so it's pointless arguing that Norris should have been let off or Max should have penalised on the basis that that's what we think the rules should be. The guidelines say the defending car must still be able to make the corner but give no further clarity on what it should mean if/when they don't do that.

But the active guideline only says the apex thing is possibly taken into account, but that the driver MUST complete the corner on track.

The rules say someone shouldn't overtake off track also, but they don't give any clarity on what it should mean if/when they do that....

Essentially, the rules surrounding all this, guidelines and penalties are poorly worded and very much open to too much interpretation.

It isn't even clear who should be deemed ahead at the start of the corner (as Brundle pointed out)

I don't believe they were simply interpreting the rules corectly. I just think no common sense was applied and it should have been left as a racing incident.

 

[Kenai]

But the active guideline only says the apex thing is possibly taken into account, but that the driver MUST complete the corner on track.

The rules say someone shouldn't overtake off track also, but they don't give any clarity on what it should mean if/when they do that....

Essentially, the rules surrounding all this, guidelines and penalties are poorly worded and very much open to too much interpretation.

It isn't even clear who should be deemed ahead at the start of the corner (as Brundle pointed out)

I don't believe they were simply interpreting the rules corectly. I just think no common sense was applied and it should have been left as a racing incident.

The non-binding guidelines are non-binding in their entirety, so there's little point getting hung up on the specifics of the wording.

These guidelines are being issued by the FIA in response to a request from Formula 1 drivers for the FIA to confirm the factors that may be taken into account by the FIA Stewards, when decisions are made in relation to certain repeated infringements that occur in the course of a season.

For avoidance of doubt, these are merely guidelines to assist the stewards in their decision making and are non-binding. All stewards` decisions will be made pursuant to the FIA International Sporting Code read in conjunction with all relevant regulations applicable to Formula 1.

It's not like the highway code where there's any kind of meaningful distinction between the words 'should' and 'must' etc.

So given the guidelines are still actually only "here's some stuff the stewards might use to assist their decision making" (edit - and remember, they did consider the fact Max left the track too, that's the reasoning they gave as to why they considered Norris deserved a reduced penalty), the only real concrete rule that we can fall back on is the one about lasting advantages gained whilst going off track in the regulations, which are written that simplistically - there's no caveats, explanations or mitigating circumstances with them - it's very black and white (too much so, in my opinion, but that's what it is).

I agree they are poorly written as things stand, if they were better written then there would be no room for discussion but achieving that level of clarity is going to be difficult I think - the guidelines were issued originally to try and clear this sort of stuff up but even then people interpret them in ways that i'm sure weren't envisaged when they were drafted.

I don't think they can leave it as a 'racing incident' when both cars go off track like this though, without leaving the implication open to others that racing whilst off track is effectively to be considered 'just a racing incident' as it will potentially encourage worse behaviour. Next time Max dive bombed the inside whilst defending, if the precedent now is that the person overtaking would be allowed to keep the place and nobody is getting punished because it's 'a racing incident', how much more extreme would Max go? Keep running them wider and wider until they reach the gravel? When does it stop becoming a 'racing incident'? It's another potential loophole to be abused, which we know he's keen to do, as he exploits the loopholes that exist now.

Hopefully the 'Driving Standards Guidelines' that will become part of the ISC Appendix L next year are more clearly and decisively written to stop this behaviour - I don't think there's a draft floating around anywhere publicly still though.

 

[Scam]

Much as I dislike Max getting the advantage out of this, pragmatically Norris is not very street savvy he should have just dropped behind and had another go.

If Norris gave up the position there then he'd be tarred with the "soft" brush even more than McLaren are now, particularly if he couldn't get past in the end (likely because Max would implement the same defence for the rest of the race). Can you imagine how stupid they'd feel if he gave up the position then never got past him.

Why not just disallow all overtaking off track and be done with it.

So how would people race Max?
(It doesn't solve the problem, overtaking off the track is already not allowed)

I don't think they can leave it as a 'racing incident' when both cars go off track like this though, without leaving the implication open to others that racing whilst off track is effectively to be considered 'just a racing incident' as it will potentially encourage worse behaviour. Next time Max dive bombed the inside whilst defending, if the precedent now is that the person overtaking would be allowed to keep the place and nobody is getting punished because it's 'a racing incident', how much more extreme would Max go? Keep running them wider and wider until they reach the gravel? When does it stop becoming a 'racing incident'? It's another potential loophole to be abused, which we know he's keen to do, as he exploits the loopholes that exist now.

I was going to say maybe penalise both drivers as that might stop Max running people off the road -- but it'd be unfair to the person he drives off the road to potentially lose position to cars behind with a 5sec penalty for simply trying to race Max.

Again, I refer to my idea that it should be similar to a football referee waving play-on. They're not ignoring the fact that it was a foul, but they're understanding that the team that was first disadvantaged (with the foul / being run off the road) has recouped that disadvantage (by playing on / getting the pass done anyway).

 

[petridish]

A few well written posts from @Kenai which I'm in agreement with, my only additional comment would be the point I made about giving both drivers a penalty rather than reducing one due to the action of the other.

Keep Lando's full 10s as they stated he should have been given (by the wording of the rules), but also give Max 5s for forcing another driver off the track (I am right in thinking this is defined in the rules aren't I?). Incident can end the way it did and both drivers have lost out, which promotes approaching the same situation with more thought next time and eventually stamps it out.

 

[Kenai]

Again, I refer to my idea that it should be similar to a football referee waving play-on. They're not ignoring the fact that it was a foul, but they're understanding that the team that was first disadvantaged (with the foul / being run off the road) has recouped that disadvantage (by playing on / getting the pass done anyway).

I think the problem with this is that is giving implicit approval to 'race' when you're off the track - if both drivers know that nobody gets punished and it's "play on", overtaking drivers will ALWAYS keep the move going, even if they're run off the track and defending drivers (particularly ones who like to exploit loopholes) will make their defence even more extreme to try to prevent people passing even when they've already pushed them off the track entirely.

You have to aim to keep people on the track and penalise people for pushing the limits too far.

This is why my preferred clarification would be that where a defending car cannot make the corner due to the 'robustness' of their defence, they will incur a 10s penalty (and potentially made to concede the place too but that may have unintended consequences that i've not thought through).

That way, it doesn't even really matter too much if the other car actually completes the pass or not when judging such an incident but would give enough confidence to attacking drivers that a) it's less likely to be done in the first place so they'd try it more often and b) if it is done, a penalty will be dished out, so they won't feel like they absolutely have to make the move stick there and then and they won't come off second best. This I think is as close as you can get to neutralising the effectiveness of defending by running yourself off the track without risking introducing other unintended consequences.

 

[Scam]

Keep Lando's full 10s as they stated he should have been given (by the wording of the rules), but also give Max 5s for forcing another driver off the track (I am right in thinking this is defined in the rules aren't I?). Incident can end the way it did and both drivers have lost out, which promotes approaching the same situation with more thought next time and eventually stamps it out.

Giving Lando 10secs and Max 5secs doesn't make sense as it'll still allow Max to force cars off and not lose out relative to them. If there's no-one within 5-10secs of them he'll play the same game.

This is why my preferred clarification would be that where a defending car cannot make the corner due to the 'robustness' of their defence, they will incur a 10s penalty (and potentially made to concede the place too but that may have unintended consequences that i've not thought through).

Honestly I just don't see why Max doesn't get a penalty for going off track and forcing another driver into avoiding action. If you're defending and you go off circuit as part of your defence, you deserve to lose the place either through the other car carrying on (like Lando) or through a penalty if they choose to back out (for instance if there was a wall coming to greet Lando).

 

[petridish]

Giving Lando 10secs and Max 5secs doesn't make sense as it'll still allow Max to force cars off and not lose out relative to them. If there's no-one within 5-10secs of them he'll play the same game.

Yes, that's the point. In this case if Lando doesn't tuck back in behind then the current rules say Lando gained the lasting advantage and should be punished, but Max is still penalised for forcing him off the track. In the case that Lando gives back the place/rejoins behind him again then Max still gets the penalty whilst Lando avoids his. You even say this in your last sentence. The only way for both drivers to avoid their respective penalty is to keep it on the track.

 

[Kenai]

Honestly I just don't see why Max doesn't get a penalty for going off track and forcing another driver into avoiding action.

I agree in principle, but that's not the same as whether the rules actually currently call for that in the specific situation that occurred where he's deemed to be the defending driver (for clarity, I personally don't think there's any mileage at all in the idea that Max was 'attacking' because Norris got fractionally ahead in the run in to the corner)

If you're defending and you go off circuit as part of your defence, you deserve to lose the place either through the other car carrying on (like Lando) or through a penalty if they choose to back out (for instance if there was a wall coming to greet Lando).

The first option is ok in theory but I think could inadvertently encourage dodgy driving and off track racing as drivers continue to try and defend further and further off track to stop the other car 'carrying on'.

The latter option (a definite penalty applied) is what i'd like to see - I think this has the added benefit that for attacking drivers, knowing it's a black and white penalty for the defending driver if they overdo it to that extent, they'll be able to go into those sort of moves with more confidence that such overly robust defending simply won't take place in the first place, such is the risk of a penalty immediately being applied.

Regardless you'll never get away from the potential problem of 'if they're both 30s down the road from everyone else, they won't care about a 10s penalty' so it'd probably be best combined with also being made to concede the place (notwithstanding any unforeseen consequence to this as per my previous post). That also means the attacking drivers will feel less compulsion to keep forcing the move if it does happen again.

 

[holdin09]

I mean, this is pretty much what happened. Max was behind as they entered the braking zone as Norris was a full car length ahead at the end of the straight. Max then divebombs/brakes late up the inside and doesn't make the corner.

Norris should have never got a penalty. He was ahead at the end of the straight, Max tried to get back ahead, but went of the track and forced Norris wide. Norris gained no advantage really, from getting forced off the track.

It is judged at the apex of the corner for who is ahead and max was ahead then so my point stands.

 

[Jono8]

It is judged at the apex of the corner for who is ahead and max was ahead then so my point stands.

Not if Max is seen as the attacker (IE Norris was deemed in 3rd) as they entered the corner/braking zone.

I think Max was the attacker in this situation after losing the place on the straight. He tried to get it back by dive bombing, braking late and overshooting the corner/forcing Norris off.

 

[Kenai]

If Max was attacking, nobody would be calling it a 'great overtake' anyway, because he came out of the corner behind Norris

 

[petridish]

I think the argument that Norris was stone-wall 3rd therefore Verstappen was attacking is a bit dubious and kind of undermines the valid discussion here. Both were in contention of the position but Max the defender and Norris the attacker. If we're going to give it percentages 60/40 seems fair, not clear cut but I'd say enough to say who holds which stance per the rules.

I have a problem with the guidelines being based on ahead at the apex as in this case I do think the only reason for Max to arrive there first was the fact that he was never making the corner - which I think we're all saying tbh. It's what Jenson was saying on the post race commentary for example.

Other circuits ahead at the apex may or may not make sense, Austin in particular where there are multiple lines and the track is wide enough for two abreast then I'm inclined to agree that breaking zone makes more sense. The sprint had a lot of position changes due to different lines through corners remember. I'll caveat all that with the fact that I actually don't think breaking zone is clear enough for written guidelines as you can break as late as you like if you're the defender as long as you make the corner. Still, it's used for the moving in the breaking zone rules so there's precedent for it as a measure...

And therein lies the problem. There's no 'one size fits all' and it's only scenarios like this that highlight the problem with the wording of the rules and guidelines. All that we can hope is that examples and suggested outcomes are added with the benefit of hindsight over time to clarify things so that the right decision can be made quickly in the moment. E.g. second place under safety car restart no longer being allowed along side first place.