[Official] Canadian Grand Prix 2019: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

...The default should be to give the offender the benefit of doubt...

just cherry picking this one line and viewed on its own and out of context from the rest of your post this seems to me that this would be a very difficult premise to defend and ultimately a far more problematic one to implement.

if you allow for a more nuanced approach, then arent you just pushing it all on down the line and putting the next steward in some off in the future race in an even more difficult position to make the 'right call'?

arguably we are in this mess because history has already given driver/teams too much freedom in pleading their cases.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think many (most?) people feel the punishment didn't fit the crime.

On this point, I entirely agree that the punishment did not fit the crime.
I also feel though, that the stewards were correct in awarding the punishment under the current regulations.

I appreciate it is impossible to write a set of regulations to cover any eventuality. But I also feel that, as is the case with precedents in legal circles, that once an issue with a situation has been identified that the regulations do not adequately cover then they should be reviewed.

In this case, Vettel unfortunately is the individual to whom the regulations are written has lost out.

The same happens with technical matters. Teams introduce something that is within the letter of the regulation, but maybe against the spirit. The regulation is amended to handle the situation, and the teams adapt. They don't go back though and amend previous results.

In this case, Vettel received a penalty that could be argued is against the spirit of that regulation. The regulation could be amended, and then drivers in a similar situation in future would not be penalised.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Entirely different situation/ scenario. Hamilton rejoined the track safely and then took his racing line leaving a cars width, he didn’t do as Vettel did and force a car off the race track.

Makes me laugh how people are using that video as an example

As predicted, the conversation has gotten very silly.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In this case, Vettel received a penalty that could be argued is against the spirit of that regulation. The regulation could be amended, and then drivers in a similar situation in future would not be penalised.

Were this to happen, it is as certain as night follows day that at some point in a future race a driver would rejoin after an off, force a competitor off the track (or into a wall) and be allowed to continue on their merry way. And fans including some on this forum would fume that the stewards are fools and the regulations are terrible because it was "obvious" that the driver should be penalised.

To repeat: you can have consistent application of the rules or you can have judgement calls. You cannot have both.

I also repeat: this was Vettel's fault, no-one else's. He made the mistake under pressure, he went off the track, he paid the price. The result was fair. Vettel is also being given too much of a free pass for hist post-race behaviour. Can you even begin to imagine the tsunami of outrage and abuse which would fall on Hamilton should he strop like that?

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

I also repeat: this was Vettel's fault, no-one else's. He made the mistake under pressure, he went off the track, he paid the price. The result was fair. Vettel is also being given too much of a free pass for hist post-race behaviour. Can you even begin to imagine the tsunami of outrage and abuse which would fall on Hamilton should he strop like that?

This. A million times over. Hamilton would have been destroyed by fans and the media, but somehow Vettel gets off Scott free

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

To repeat: you can have consistent application of the rules or you can have judgement calls. You cannot have both.

As I say earlier... There is clearly examples of having both and frankly that is the core of how both the technical and sporting regulations are applied. Now people may "think" they are not making judgement calls, but they are. I provided examples earlier in this thread where they do this.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In this case, Vettel received a penalty that could be argued is against the spirit of that regulation. The regulation could be amended, and then drivers in a similar situation in future would not be penalised.

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Were this to happen, it is as certain as night follows day that at some point in a future race a driver would rejoin after an off, force a competitor off the track (or into a wall) and be allowed to continue on their merry way. And fans including some on this forum would fume that the stewards are fools and the regulations are terrible because it was "obvious" that the driver should be penalised.

It depends upon how you amend the regulations. You could be stupid about it and inject obvious ways to abuse, or you could selectively target specific things (which is what crmalcolm mentions). I think the regulations are tweaked when they feel there is too much grey area, or teams start to play in a specific grey area and they want them to stop.

Good rules are hard to write. The best rules include some level of "catch all" verbiage PLUS the ability for someone to make judgement calls as to where and when to call "foul". I would say that the "spirit of the rules" is a very close cousin to my "invisible boundary". Basically both define the same thing.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

just cherry picking this one line and viewed on its own and out of context from the rest of your post this seems to me that this would be a very difficult premise to defend and ultimately a far more problematic one to implement.

if you allow for a more nuanced approach, then arent you just pushing it all on down the line and putting the next steward in some off in the future race in an even more difficult position to make the 'right call'?

arguably we are in this mess because history has already given driver/teams too much freedom in pleading their cases.

See my comment below (and source post above) about invisible boundaries.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

or you have an understanding that the rule is enforced when there is some level of violation that crosses some "invisible boundary".

I am saying that Stewards already have to make judgement calls. That "nuanced approach" already exists. Sometimes analysis and conclusion is pretty obvious. Other times maybe not. To my quote directly above, there is likely unwritten rules, lines in the sand, etc. in which a decision may hing upon. That will sway a ruling one way or another.

My argument is that having to make those calls happens all the time in the sport. So I don't think its anything new or unusual. I would say it would be odd for it to not be happening. That is exactly why the Race Stewards exist.

In the end... mistakes will be made when an individual or group of people are expected to make a judgement call.

As I mention above, there tends to be an invisible boundary on these things. I think where the inconsistencies come from are...

1. Lack of understanding where those lines are. Both internally (within the Stewards) and external (communicated to the drivers)
2. Irregular application

I expect #1 is the larger issue while we as fans maybe think it is #2. I think what will be interesting is what will come of this past weekend. Either it is accepted as is, or there might be some clarifications as to how to handle this in the future. Regardless, whatever happens, the location of that boundary will be clarified for this scenario.

I tend to think that the powers that be do NOT think this was F1 at it's best from an application of the rules. It's a moot point as it's likely we may never know. Any clarification on how this should be done in the future will likely happen behind closed doors and with a desire to keep it away from the media.

If the location of the invisible boundary is well known (Stewards, Drivers and even fans), then its much less likely for bad calls to be made and for everyone to be shocked by outcomes. If they ARE well known and then there is a bad call... Then that is more at situation #2 in which the are inconsistently applied.

I am pretty much talked out on this. I have read some of the more recent articles about "why" this penalty was applied. Vettel turning to the right, looking in his mirrors, allowing the car to drift right, etc. I would say much of this reads like the prosecution building a story. Maybe the Stewards felt that they had to act like prosecutors (someone has to be guilty of something!) and less as arbitrators.

Richard

[Purist]

That's a bit much. An actual collision would be penalized, to think otherwise is absurd. Anyway, a collision would likely result in a double DNF, which would render any possible in-race penalty moot.

And notice, Hamilton talked about the wall being there, rather than Vettel being in the way. You can write the subtext easily enough of "If I were in his place, I'd do what he did, and I'd do it again if the situation were repeated". At the end of the day, I don't think Hamilton himself finds what Vettel did to be truly in the wrong in racing terms.

And I take issue with a lot of the comments that just trivialize or make arbitrary the idea of track limits. This includes Hamilton's comment about there being a wall there, but also the sentiment that the earlier move between the Racing Point and Haas at Turn 1 was "okay", because the Haas could just take to the run-off. If we're going to be strict about this, then run-off shouldn't matter in such a situation. If youcan't make the pass without running your opponent off the designated racing surface, you should have to give the place back. Incidentally, if there was a penalty to give in the Vettel/Hamilton thing, this one seems the most apt.

And if my sentiment brings calls of "Well then they won't be able to pass because of x, y, z", well, then address the bloody elephant in the room, which would involve a proper clampdown on blocking, weaving, and overt defensive driving of various kinds. Then again, with racing drivers, such as their mentalities are, I'm not sure that anything short of an increased concern for possible bodily injury will lead to an honest change in behavior. And that would leave the remaining option, which even I don't really "like", as draconian enforcement of various driving standards rules.

And clearly, the rule needs further clarification in writing. The intent had to do with drivers fully under control of their cars pulling back onto the circuit from the designated run-off. Brundle and co. brought up a scenario at the hairpin, giving a clear example of when the penalty would be warranted. If you need a concrete example of a situation where full enforcement would be absolutely correct, watch Paul Tracy try to re-enter the track at San Jose in 2006, and the resulting crash with Tagliani.

Shoot, I'm glad this set of stewards wasn't overseeing the 1991 IMSA GTP race at New Orleans. Speaking of which, I don't want to see an F1 wet weather race until this has been better sorted.

[ascarracinguk]

By far the most sensible conclusion I’ve seen so far. Taking all emotion out of it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

One final thought, if it was the other way around, Hamilton went off and acted like Vettel did afterwards...how many of you would be defending him right now?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

By far the most sensible conclusion I’ve seen so far. Taking all emotion out of it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48583803

One final thought, if it was the other way around, Hamilton went off and acted like Vettel did afterwards...how many of you would be defending him right now?

I would and I'd like to think the majority on this forum would. Credit and discredit where it is due and all that jazz. Not sure a loaded question implying bias is particularly fair.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I would and I'd like to think the majority on this forum would.

But presumably not those posters who called Hamilton a "thief" and a "whiny b!tch" who deserved a "smack in the mouth" for a single calm radio message, but who had nothing to say about Vettel's latest emotional meltdown and embarrassing public strop.

[Aysedasi]

Not fair perhaps, but possibly accurate....

[Compromised]

Maybe the truth is, everyone is so desperate for any small semblance of racing that in the case (A FIGHT FOR THE LEAD!!!!) we are willing to overlook the regulations in their strictest interpretation?

Sad really.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

But presumably not those posters who called Hamilton a "thief" and a "whiny b!tch" who deserved a "smack in the mouth" for a single calm radio message, but who had nothing to say about Vettel's latest emotional meltdown and embarrassing public strop.

I'd like to think that the majority of us just skip those posts without much thought.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

One final thought, if it was the other way around, Hamilton went off and acted like Vettel did afterwards...how many of you would be defending him right now?

Absolutely. My thought on this have zero intersection with whoever I may or may not be a fan of. I would absolutely be just as outraged if it had been Hamilton who had a win taken from him.

I personally see a few groups who are fired up over this...

1. Hamilton fans who think he can do no wrong, and are upset other are upset at him or say he "got away with something"
2. Vettel fans who think can do no wrong, and are upset because he got shafted (regardless of who was wrong)
3. Fans who are upset the race was decided on a bogus ruling regardless of who got the win taken away.
4. Those that have a strong desire to see rules followed to the letter and without exception. (I am a "rules is rules" guy in general, but sorry, I say these people live in a fantasy world)

There may be other camps. I am firmly in #3. Bad calls happen, bad calls that determine the race outcome (including the car that takes the checker being demoted) happen less frequently. Hence the outrage.

Richard

PS: I understand the Stewards can justify "why" they did what they did. I still think it was bogus however. Given a few hours, etc. anyone can justify actions like this. I am sure everyone in charge just wants this swept under the rug at this point.

[Anyopenroad]

There is another group. Those who think that the decision was correct according to the rules and that the abuse and accusations being dished out to Hamilton and the stewards is both wildly inappropriate and distracts from the fact that it was Vettel's mistake - and Vettel's mistake alone - which cost him the win.

I am certainly not, as you patronisingly imply, a Hamilton fan who thinks he can do no wrong. I'm not a personal fan of any driver, I'm not a teenager with posters of my idols on my wall. I like Vettel, who comes across as a very pleasant, intelligent and funny person. I admire Hamilton, who I think is one of the very greatest F1 drivers of all time. I'd have been very happy for Vettel to win in Canada because he was the fastest all weekend and his win would have made the title race more interesting. But he lost because he yet again cracked under pressure, not because Hamilton complained on the radio or Emanuele Pirro doesn't know how to do his job.

[Born Racer]

When Vettel rejoins, one thing that is a fact is that there is a movement of the steering wheel to the right. What is questionable is whether that was to correct the car or to put the car on the racing line and defend the position.

Knowing what it is like to be a racing driver, I could well imagine it was purely instinct to steer right and position his car there. It may not have premeditated, nor might he have even been aware of it at the time.

I wonder whether the stewards have looked at telemetry and determined that it was not a car-controlling correction but was an attempt to hold the line and therefore in lead to the following: 'Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision'.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...hGG6oYkZs.html

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

There is another group. Those who think that the decision was correct according to the rules and that the abuse and accusations being dished out to Hamilton and the stewards is both wildly inappropriate and distracts from the fact that it was Vettel's mistake - and Vettel's mistake alone - which cost him the win.

I am certainly not, as you patronisingly imply, a Hamilton fan who thinks he can do no wrong. I'm not a personal fan of any driver, I'm not a teenager with posters of my idols on my wall. I like Vettel, who comes across as a very pleasant, intelligent and funny person. I admire Hamilton, who I think is one of the very greatest F1 drivers of all time. I'd have been very happy for Vettel to win in Canada because he was the fastest all weekend and his win would have made the title race more interesting. But he lost because he yet again cracked under pressure, not because Hamilton complained on the radio or Emanuele Pirro doesn't know how to do his job.

Nail, hit, head

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

I am certainly not, as you patronisingly imply, a Hamilton fan who thinks he can do no wrong.

I didn't say or imply you or anyone here is in any specific group other than myself. If you feel insulted by placing yourself into a fan specific category, that is your own doing not mine.

You do include a group I missed, which are those who think the penalty was correct regardless who made the error.

Richard

[Adam43]

I see we've got into the part where we are dismissing other's opinions based on who they might be a fan of. Is that hard to accept you just disagree with someone?

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

This. A million times over. Hamilton would have been destroyed by fans and the media, but somehow Vettel gets off Scott free

And of course now we are onto how poor old Lewis is constantly the victim.

How terribly predictable.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Skam85

And of course now we are onto how poor old Lewis is constantly the victim.

How terribly predictable.

I haven’t claimed that at all. Lewis has his downfalls, and he deserves some stick as all drivers do at times. He certainly isn’t always the victim but more often than no he recieves a fair amount of stick when doing nothing wrong or showing emotion that people claim is whinging...take a look at this thread if you want proof.

I’m simply saying that if Hamilton would have acted the way that Vettel did, he would have been crucified for it.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I see we've got into the part where we are dismissing other's opinions based on who they might be a fan of. Is that hard to accept you may just disagree for someone?

Not sure who that is directed at. If me, my apologies if I came across that way. We are all fans of something in the sport, so be extension that logic would discount all opinions (which can't be valid).

I could clarify my comments above if needed, but I don't want to stir the pot more than I have. People here have become offended and that wasn't my intent.

Richard

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Not sure who that is directed at. If me, my apologies if I came across that way. We are all fans of something in the sport, so be extension that logic would discount all opinions (which can't be valid).

I could clarify my comments above if needed, but I don't want to stir the pot more than I have. People here have become offended and that wasn't my intent.

Richard

I didn’t take it as such Richard. Think you were right in the most part even if you forgot a group of us :-p

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Not sure who that is directed at.

No one specifically.

We are all fans of something in the sport, so be extension that logic would discount all opinions (which can't be valid).

I see we are also in that part of the discussion where the point is to win rather than discuss while understanding other’s point of view. 10 internet points to you sir for your technical win there.

All I am saying is that, just as it is not fair to be blindly biased, it is not fair to dismiss all other’s opinions by suggesting that they have come from who they support. Obviously that does happen. But here it is clear that for a lot of posters that is not the case.

A minor point of discussion. Consider and move on.

[Adam43]

So, anyway.

Are Ferrari appealing? https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...vettel-penalty
I didn’t think that these kind of penalties could be appealed?