Team Orders WMSC meeting on 8th Sept

[Duke]

Verdicts on the result? Could go either way in my opinion - thrown out due to lack of 'real' evidence or book thrown at them for bringing the sport into disrepute.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85832

The FIA has set the date for the disciplinary hearing of the World Motor Sport Council to judge Ferrari's actions during the German Grand Prix.

The Italian squad was fined $100,000 for the illegal use of team orders during the Hockenheim event, where Felipe Massa handed the lead of the race to team-mate Fernando Alonso.

Ferrari broke article 39.1 of the sporting regulations, which state that "team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited."

Apart from the fine, Ferrari was summoned to the WMSC.

The governing body announced on Monday that the WMSC hearing will take place in Paris on 8 September.

 

[Glaucus]

yeah could go either way, but I'm leaning on "lenient" punishment(anything upto WCC point being removed, but certainly nothing more and probably less) and change of rules or at least date set for meeting with fota.

 

[FrankJH]

I dont think there is any question about the evidence, it was blatantly obvious what was meant by RS over the radio to Massa

Verdict - some slap on the wrist for bringing the sport into disrepute or something, no monitary fine will make a jot of difference to the team, and I cant see them punishing the team on track because that would have to hurt Alonso's title challange which would be exactly what the WMC /FIA doesnt want (people to stop watching F1)

In actually changing/clarifying the rules (which they have to do), they are between a rock and a hardplace - personally being a sport and individual cars, I dont see it any difference to Athletics with two Englishmen running /jumping in a final , they can still compete against each other even though they have the same paymaster (UK Athletics + sponsors (Aviva/Spar))

If you are good enough to win (on the day) you should be able to be good enough to win without any additional help

Im also pretty certain that it wont go that way and somehow they will "allow" team descisions

 

[JRS]

Im also pretty certain that it wont go that way and somehow they will "allow" team descisions

It'll probably go the same way that the traction control ban did the first time around in 2001 - they'll recognise that it's damned-near impossible to police, admit defeat and allow it.

 

[sunama]

It'll probably go the same way that the traction control ban did the first time around in 2001 - they'll recognise that it's damned-near impossible to police, admit defeat and allow it.

IIRC, team orders were banned, because fans didnt like the idea of the "wrong" driver, winning (or finishing ahead), in the race. It was mainly down to the media and fans.

Team orders were not appreciated by the public/media in 2002.
Team orders were not appreciated by the public/media in 2010.

Why would the FIA, in 2010, decide to re-allow team-orders. What has changed?

There is no logical reason to re-allow team-orders.

PS. for the record, I fully approve of team-orders and beleive very strongly, that they should and must be permitted.

 

[FrankJH]

Its difficult to compare I admit but think of it another way

Imagine Rooney, Drogba, Van Persie all going for the Golden boot (and of course the relevant betting by the public)

Obviously if x player is in the right position to score then there is no problem - but what do people think about 2 or 3 additional un-necessary passes just to get y player into position so he can score (rather than someone else a lot more easily) in tight victories

I would be almightily ***** off if a club kept on doing that just to get one member of the team winning something that has been manipulated

Never thought team-orders had a place in any "sport" - maybe BE should just decide at the beginning of each season who he wants to win the title......oh wait thats already happened a few times with a helping hand from the FIA

 

[sunama]

Never thought team-orders had a place in any "sport" -

All team sports involve team orders.

Using football as an example, managers pick who they feel are the best players (not necessarily the players who the fans/media think should be picked).

Furthermore, managers do decide tactics for a game. So, if he asks his lone striker to stay in front of goal and instructs all the other 9 outfield players to hoof the ball to him (to score), in effect, he is manipulating such that his lone striker, is the most likely player who will score.

Similarly, you might have a manager who feels that a certain player is best played out of position. The player in question doesnt like this, but he does it anyway. As a result of being played out of position, he plays badly during the game. The media/fans do not have the right to complain or get the rules changed such that every player must be given the best opportunity to play at the best, in their preferred role.

ALL team games/sports involve tactics and quite often, sacrificing certain players for the greater good of the team, is normal.

 

[dannyjo22]

Team orders were not appreciated by the public/media in 2002.
Team orders were not appreciated by the public/media in 2010.

Yet they don't mind them when drivers move over to allow another to win the title. Why does the public hold the morale code on what they think is right with team orders.

I'd be pretty miffed if I had £500 on driver X to win the title and he didn't win because of a last race team order. Team orders are team orders there's no rule to say it's ok in the first race or last race. Theres no rule to say its acceptable to help your team mate win the title either.

The worst team order of all in 97 got ignored, no one cared. Two team colluding to organise the outcome of a race and championship. Two british teams and the media hardly cared. They did this across multiple races.

You cannot allow Heikki to move over for Hamilton as acceptable and then complain that somehow it's a different type of team order.

I think it's being shown and unpolicable. You could just put a green dot on the pitboard of a * to tell the driver to move over.

 

[Glaucus]

I'd be pretty miffed if I had £500 on driver X to win the title and he didn't win because of a last race team order. Team orders are team orders there's no rule to say it's ok in the first race or last race. Theres no rule to say its acceptable to help your team mate win the title either.
.

it would be ok if the rules stated team orders where fine. That way alonso would have had much lower odds and Massa much higher.


There are diffrent team orders. I don;t think there is anything wrong with
team mates on different strategies letting each other past. Not that we will see much of that any more unless tyres are drastically different compounds next year.

TBH I don't really care either way, banned or not. It needs clarifying and people to be held accountable.

 

[mmj_uk]

All team sports involve team orders.

Using football as an example, managers pick who they feel are the best players (not necessarily the players who the fans/media think should be picked).

Furthermore, managers do decide tactics for a game. So, if he asks his lone striker to stay in front of goal and instructs all the other 9 outfield players to hoof the ball to him (to score), in effect, he is manipulating such that his lone striker, is the most likely player who will score.

Similarly, you might have a manager who feels that a certain player is best played out of position. The player in question doesnt like this, but he does it anyway. As a result of being played out of position, he plays badly during the game. The media/fans do not have the right to complain or get the rules changed such that every player must be given the best opportunity to play at the best, in their preferred role.

ALL team games/sports involve tactics and quite often, sacrificing certain players for the greater good of the team, is normal.

How would you feel if Roman Abramovich bought Manchester United so they could play the games out to a Chelsea win whenever they met?

While ever F1 has a Drivers Championship teams/owners should not be allowed to fix it.

 

[Glaucus]

How would you feel if Roman Abramovich bought Manchester United so they could play the games out to a Chelsea win whenever they met?
.

That's not the same. it is liek fixing who in your team scores the goals

You example is like Williams letting Mclarens through. Which as Bernie himself said would be illegal under any change in rules and punished heavily.

 

[mmj_uk]

That's not the same. it is liek fixing who in your team scores the goals

You example is like Williams letting Mclarens through. Which as Bernie himself said would be illegal under any change in rules and punished heavily.

As far as the drivers championship is concerned it's no different.

The whole problem arises from each team owner having two runner within the drivers championship, much like if Abramovich owned two Premier League clubs.

I don't see how a Ferrari letting a Ferrari through is any better than a Williams letting a McLaren through as far as the drivers championship goes, it's fixing the championship whichever way you look at it.

They either need to stop teams from fixing the drivers championship or just scrap it as meaningless and give both drivers of the winning team a medal.

 

[Glaucus]

I don't see how a Ferrari letting a Ferrari through is any better than a Williams letting a McLaren through as far as the drivers championship goes, it's fixing the championship whichever way you look at it.

because it is both a team sport and a driver sport. It is not one nor the other.

why would you scrap the drivers championship. Why would you reward both drivers equally when one is often rubbish compared to the other regardless of team orders.

It just need to be clear from the start of teh championship what is and isn't allowed, that way bets will be adjusted accordingly.

 

[dannyjo22]

You example is like Williams letting Mclarens through. Which as Bernie himself said would be illegal under any change in rules and punished heavily.

Apart from in 97 when that happened and they colluded atleast twice and the world didn't care because it was MS and Ferrari losing and the British teams winning.

The end of the 97 was season was shamefull, the whole world got sucked up in MS moving into JV (who sold MS the biggest dummy of all time) and didn't give too hoots that the bigger scandal was two teams conspiring to stop another winning.

You can bet you house that If Ferrari and Renault conspired to stop Mclaren winning the titles it would be in the paper for months.

 

[Glaucus]

TBH I can't remember that far back, could it be proved? as blatent as Ferrari?, it makes no difference anyway. There has been a change at the head and a change in the way FIA is run.

Things need to be enforced and kept consistent.

Or are you saying F1 should remain static. we have never had consistent punishment or rules, so why start now.

 

[mmj_uk]

because it is both a team sport and a driver sport. It is not one nor the other.

The idea that it's a team sport but yet there is an individual drivers championship are in direct conflict with one another, the only way the drivers championship can function fairly is if team orders are illegal.

why would you scrap the drivers championship. Why would you reward both drivers equally when one is often rubbish compared to the other regardless of team orders.

Because if teams are giving orders for drivers to move over then the drivers championship ceases to be about the best performing driver, as it stands now drivers are picking up points they shouldn't have and making a mockery of the drivers championship.

The best driver could still be unofficially judged by who won the most races, since without a drivers championship teams would have no need to fix races as Ferrari did.

 

[utajoker]

i think they will just take the points of them for that race but not disqualify them so that others dont get bumped up the points.

 

[Glaucus]

The idea that it's a team sport but yet there is an individual drivers championship are in direct conflict with one another, the only way the drivers championship can function fairly is if team orders are illegal.

And only wya to remain a team sport, is if team order are allowed. yes they do conflict each other to a certain degree, but no need to scrap either. You just have to accept 1 driver in the team is proffered, or could be proffered at some stage in the season. We are talking about team mates, not the entire field.

Because if teams are giving orders for drivers to move over then the drivers championship ceases to be about the best performing driver, as it stands now drivers are picking up points they shouldn't have and making a mockery of the drivers championship.

Not at all you still have 24 drivers, just that at some point in the season, teams may give team orders and that's not even possible in most races. It's not as if a team can give orders to the other 22 drivers.

The best driver could still be unofficially judged by who won the most races, since without a drivers championship teams would have no need to fix races as Ferrari did.

Why would you remove 50% of F1, there is no need and no conflict.
And yes team orders with no WDC would still be required.

 

[dannyjo22]

TBH I can't remember that far back, could it be proved? as blatent as Ferrari?, it makes no difference anyway. There has been a change at the head and a change in the way FIA is run.

Things need to be enforced and kept consistent.

Or are you saying F1 should remain static. we have never had consistent punishment or rules, so why start now.

More blantant. If you watch the pre-race Brundle even mentioned it to Bernie. As brundle put it to bernie, "two teams colluding to stop another winning as Williams and Mclaren did in 97"

Williams had an agreement with Mclaren that Mclaren would hold back the superior car they then had to allow williams to fight it out with Ferrari with no interference.

By then the Mclaren was by far the fastest car. Tha mclaren would get out of the way of a williams and do it's best to hold up a ferrari. At suzuka in 97 JV tried to back the ferraris into the Mclarens and mclaren didn't understand this and kept backing off. The pace was so slow in the end.

Head spent half the sodding races walking backwards and forwards to the Mclaren pit. Afterwards Mclaren said publically they didn't quite understand what they where supposed to do.

As a reward for keeping away Williams would reward Hakkinen with a win. Villeneuve could have won jerez despite a damaged car. The audio is out there available. You can hear Jock Clear reminding Villeneuve about the agreement with Mclaren and letting them passed.

“Hakkinen is immediately behind. Last lap. Last lap. Hakkinen has been very helpful. Jacques, position two. Don’t let me down, Jacques. We have discussed this.”

Then again Norberto Fontana said he was spoken to by Sauber and Ferrari before the race and told to play his part in holding up JV which he did pretty well

 

[FrankJH]

More blantant. If you watch the pre-race Brundle even mentioned it to Bernie. As brundle put it to bernie, "two teams colluding to stop another winning as Williams and Mclaren did in 97......allegedly"

edited for accuracy - I admit I seem to recall MB laughing over the last word but I thought it interesting that he still had to add it (may be just to cover himself / BBC just in case)

(all Im trying to suggest is that MB seemed unsure it was proven)

And only wya to remain a team sport, is if team order are allowed. yes they do conflict each other to a certain degree, but no need to scrap either. You just have to accept 1 driver in the team is proffered, or could be proffered at some stage in the season.

Depending on the season - or how good /bad the rest of the field is compared to one car's performance, that "some stage of the season" could be in May (which I think would be diabolical) or September/Oct (still pretty bad - being a sport, but at least understandable)

To be fair to Massa - IF he had been able to win in Germany - considering how often Redbull fall over themselves and how absolutely **** the McLaren is currently, Massa COULD have been a championshiop contender (after all you never know how much better he could have driven around Hungary with the win under his belt) - maybe its unlikely, sure - but mathmatically it was still very possible