Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
Because it is a sport, there has to be a level of grey area. Otherwise, that means the sport is so tightly regulated that there is no intrigue to the outcome.
What I mean is, there are certain parts of a sport where the outcome of an event can be defined as a definitive instance. These would be cases where if the same situation was reviewed a thousand times, the outcome would always be the same regardless of who made the decision. Examples of this are line calls where a ball is involved, or the total number of people allowed on a pitch.
For F1, examples of this are things such as speed limits in the pit lane, or movement before the lights go out.
Then there are the sporting contest, in which the decision is based on whether something is 'sporting' or 'fair'. Every person will have a differing opinion on where the line is drawn, and the regulations set up a framework within which the referees, umpires or stewards of a sport make their decisions. If there was no grey area, there would be no need for any form of official to adjudicate on decisions.
The fact that F1 is a sport with competitors means that there is a near-infinite amount of possibilities - and no set of regulations will cover every possible eventuality. That is why you can look for precedent, and similar incidents in the past, but no two incidents are the same.
Lap 1 T4 and Barcelona may be similar, but they are different. When we reach the point that we expect all stewards to reach the same decision with every single incident, then we are saying that all of the data could be fed into a computer, through an algorithm, and the outcome would be identical every time. If we reach the point that we can write such an algorithm, then we have reached a set of regulations with no grey areas. Until such time, we need stewards to interpret these grey areas for the sport.
Even in judging the incidents between Ham and Ver at Silverstone and Monza, the resultant positions of the driver handed a penalty were different. People have argued that 10 seconds was not a justifiable penalty, because Hamilton was able to make up the deficit. People would argue that 3 place penalty is insufficient, because either Ver could make up the places, or he will take an engine penalty anyway. So when there is grey area over what an appropriate penalty is, how can we expect all grey areas to be removed over whether an incident is worthy of penalty?
To put across an example of why removing grey area is difficult:
'For me it's a leaving racing room thing to facilitate wheel to wheel racing'
1 - what is 'racing room'. If you are taking the need to facilitate wheel to wheel racing, then it could be presented as always needing to leave a car's width.
2 - If you have to leave a car's width, is that on the inside, outside or both?
3 - When do you have to leave that width? When someone is alongside - fully, partially, majority of car length?
4 - How far into the braking zone does a car need to be alongside before they are entitled to 'racing room'?
5 - Do you need to leave racing room before or after an apex?
The list continues....
Is this racing room:
 |
Id agree with the idea of 'grey areas'
There are basic principles in all stewarding of driving behavior and good stewards have them pretty much all in a line.
In this instance Ocon got penalized for not leaving racing room.
I would say yes that is true. Racing room
in that situation is to be able to continue on your trajectory without being forced to leave the racing surface. And he was forced to leave the racing surface.
Ocon didn't really know how close he was. His mistake.
That is situation is common in all motorsports because its a blind spot.
You assume in Vettel's spot have been seen but the person in front thinks your gone, they're further ahead.
Like with Max and HAM at Silverstone.
HAM was significantly alongside but started to let it go and slipped back a bit when Max turned in across the line that Ham would have taken had he remained alongside. Just look at the aerial view. Max definitely turned in to what Ham would have occupied if he had remained in there.
Max obviously assumed he was gone or not there, but he was.
IN karting this happens a lot.
Situational unawareness, especially with kids.
Max learnt to race in karts and still retains a lot of his elbows out "I'll stuff it in there and my skills will sort it out" style o aggressive driving but its really a form of intimidation.
At Silverstone earlier in the first lap before Copse Max and Ham were side by side coming up to a left hander. Max is on the inside and starts to move to the right. HAM gives him room then Max turns left into the turn but not before his right rear makes contact with Hams left front. The same two wheels that touched in Copse.
Was the wheel/suspension damaged or weakened before Copse? I don't know. But if so it explained why the assembly came away so easily and Max lost control at 150mph.
If it was there is no question in my mind that the Max V driving style was the author of his own misfortune , not HAM.